- 33 -
debtor. [Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 726.105(1) and
(2).]
The language of the Florida fraudulent transfer statute
makes it clear that, in determining whether a transfer is made
with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor
of the debtor (fraudulent intent), we may consider factors
(badges of fraud) other than those set forth in Fla. Stat. Ann.
sec. 726.105(2)(a) through (k). See Fla. Stat. Ann. sec.
726.105(2); see also General Trading Inc. v. Yale Materials
Handling Corp., 119 F.3d 1485, 1498 (11th Cir. 1997). Moreover,
in determining whether a transfer is made with a fraudulent
intent, we must "take into account 'the particular facts sur-
rounding the conveyance,' and avoid determining in a vacuum the
presence or absence of a debtor's actual intent to hinder or
delay a creditor." Id. at 1498-1499 (quoting Kirk v. Edinger,
380 So. 2d 1336, 1337 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)). Furthermore,
although a "single badge of fraud may only create a suspicious
circumstance and may not constitute the requisite fraud to set
aside a conveyance, * * * several of them when considered to-
gether may afford a basis to infer fraud." Id. at 1498 (quoting
Johnson v. Dowell, 592 So. 2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1992)). We have recognized that
In Florida, existing creditors have the benefit of
a presumption of fraudulent intent where the conveyance
is voluntary [i.e., for no consideration] and there is
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011