- 15 -
C. Transfer
A necessary element of both Fla. Stat. secs. 726.105(1)
and 726.106(1) is a transfer of property by the debtor. The
second quitclaim deed is prima facie evidence of a transfer of
the Pelican Avenue property from Steven to petitioner on July 25,
1995 (the transfer and the transfer date, respectively). See 19
Fla. Jur. 2d Deeds sec. 1 (1998) ("‘Deed’" is synonymous with
‘conveyance.’"). But cf. Barr v. Schlarb, 314 So. 2d 609, 611
(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) (deed may signify mortgage).
Petitioner having failed to introduce contradictory evidence, we
find accordingly.
D. Fraud With Respect to Respondent
1. Introduction
To prove that, with respect to the United States, the
transfer was fraudulent, respondent must prove that it was
fraudulent within the meaning of either Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1) or sec. 726.106(1). Realistically (based on the
record before us), for respondent to prove fraud within the
meaning of Fla. Stat. sec. 726.105(1), respondent must show
Steven’s actual fraudulent intent or his unreasonable belief that
he could pay his debts as they came due. See supra note 4. For
respondent to prove fraud within the meaning of Fla. Stat. sec.
726.106(1), respondent must show Steven’s insolvency. See supra
note 5. By failing to call any witnesses in support of his case
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011