- 37 -
rely on the testimony of either witness to establish, inter alia,
Mr. Kayian, Sr.'s intent in making the initial transfer.4 On the
record before us, we find that petitioners have failed to es-
tablish that Mr. Kayian, Sr.'s "sole intention was to leave his
children and grandchildren a small legacy that his estranged wife
could not reach."
Assuming arguendo that petitioners had established that a
motive of Mr. Kayian, Sr. in giving the transferred properties to
Mr. Kayian, Jr. was to ensure that Mr. Kayian, Sr.'s children and
grandchildren, and not Ms. Livingston, received those properties,
we nonetheless find on the instant record that petitioners have
failed to rebut the presumption which we have found exists under
the Florida fraudulent transfer statute that Mr. Kayian, Sr. made
that transfer with a fraudulent intent. In so finding, we have
given consideration not only to the badges of fraud (viz., the
initial transfer was made to an insider, see Fla. Stat. Ann. sec.
726.105(2)(a), and for no consideration, see Fla. Stat. Ann. sec.
726.105(2)(h)) which give rise to that presumption, but also to
other badges of fraud established by the record in these cases,
4We note that although petitioners claim that Mr. Kayian,
Sr. "had a long discussion with his sons, Harry, Jr. and Robert
[one of the petitioners herein] about his wife's departure", they
did not call petitioner Robert Kayian as a witness at the trial
in these cases.
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