- 12 -
given by Steven only to undo the mistake of the first warranty
deed. She concludes: “[T]here is no basis in fact for the
assertion of Transferee liability against [her]”.
IV. Discussion
A. Introduction
1. Petitioner’s Defense
Petitioner does not deny that Steven transferred the
property to her. We interpret petitioner’s argument as
interposing a defense to respondent’s claim of a fraudulent
transfer; i.e., she, not Steven, was the beneficial owner of the
property, and, if Steven held any interest in the property at
all, he held it on her behalf, and he conveyed it to her by the
second quitclaim deed. See Bender v. General Elec. Supply Corp.,
117 Fla. 275, 157 So. 573 (1934) (fraud on creditor of husband
not presumed where it is shown that property transferred to wife
was purchased with money that was the separate property of the
wife, husband who took title held it in trust for wife, and wife
was, at all times, beneficial owner of property). Petitioner
need not rely on her defense (and we will not further discuss
it), since respondent has failed to carry his burden of proving a
fraudulent transfer.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011