- 21 -
Hawaii's UFTA statute, which is identical to the relevant
California statute now before us. Therein, nearly 1 year after the
limitations period expired under the Hawaii UFTA, the Federal
Government sought to foreclose on property conveyed to the
defendant. (The United States proceeded directly under the UFTA to
obtain its remedy because the limitations period under section
6901(c) for transferee liability had expired.) The United States
argued that it was not bound by the Hawaii UFTA limitations period
because of the rule in United States v. Summerlin, supra.
The court interpreted the UFTA's limitations period not as a
statute of limitations with respect to Federal transferee
liability, but rather as an element of the cause of action for
fraudulent conveyance which would be entirely extinguished if not
timely filed. In applying the UFTA's limitations period, the court
rejected the Government's argument, stating that "There is an
important distinction between cases involving the government's
common law right to collect on a debt and cases involving a
carefully delimited state statutory right." United States v.
Vellalos, supra at 707. The court distinguished the Florida
statute in Summerlin from Hawaii's UFTA on the basis that the
latter contained an extinguishment provision for a State-created
cause of action whereas the former imposed a limitations period on
an action arising out of a Federal statute (the Act of June 27,
1934, 48 Stat. 1246). The court noted the explicit intent of the
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011