- 20 -
Revenue Officer Ryland's transferee liability report discussing the
conveyance. (This assumes, of course, that section 3439.04(a) of
the California Civil Code is applicable, which we have found supra
it was not.) Thus, 1 year from the date of respondent's knowledge
of the transfer would have been no later than September 1995, still
nearly 1 year short of the date of the notice of transferee
liability against petitioner. Accordingly, we are required to
determine which period of limitations, Federal or State, controls
the time for assessing transferee liability.
The Supreme Court has stated that the United States is not
bound by State statutes of limitations in enforcing its rights,
whether the action is brought in Federal or State court. United
States v. Summerlin, 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940), and cases cited
thereat. Petitioner contends, however, that section 3439.09 of the
California Civil Code is not a statute of limitations, but rather
is an element of the cause of action which provides for the
complete extinguishment of the fraudulent conveyance claim (and
thus the transferee liability) where the time limit is not
satisfied.
Petitioner relies on United States v. Vellalos, 780 F. Supp.
705 (D. Haw. 1992), appeal dismissed 990 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1993),
in arguing that California's UFTA limitations period requires an
outcome different than that in United States v. Summerlin, supra.
In Vellalos, the United States District Court for Hawaii examined
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011