- 22 -
drafters of the UFTA in their commentary to avoid the rule of
Summerlin through the creation of the claim extinguishment
provision:
"This section is new. Its purpose is to make clear that
lapse of the statutory periods prescribed by the section
bars the right and not merely the remedy.... The section
rejects the rule applied in the United States v.
Gleneagles Inv. Co., 565 F. Supp. 556, 583 (M.D. Pa.
1983) (state statute of limitations held not to apply to
action by United States based on Uniform Fraudulent
Conveyance Act)."
United States v. Vellalos, supra at 707 (quoting Uniform Fraudulent
Transfer Act sec. 9 (Commentary), 7A U.L.A. 665-666 (1984)). (The
same language appears in the Legislative Committee Comment of the
California Assembly in its 1986 adoption of the UFTA. Cal. Civ.
Code sec. 3439.09 (Legislative Committee Comment--Assembly).) The
court went on to find that the State had the authority to
extinguish the cause of action, referring to the 10th Amendment to
the United States Constitution. The court stated that the Federal
Government was seeking to extend Summerlin beyond its holding to
cover all State laws which could be affected by the common law
right of the Government to collect its debts. The court suggested
the Government create its own Federal fraudulent conveyance statute
with an unlimited limitations period to remedy the problem.8
8 We are mindful that as part of the Crime Control Act of
1990, Pub. L. 101-647, sec. 3611, 104 Stat. 4959, Congress
created provisions for voiding fraudulent transfers as to debts
to the United States, and established applicable limitations
periods. The effective date of the fraudulent transfer
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011