- 16 -
in chief, except for petitioner, who was of no help to
respondent, respondent has limited himself to the stipulated
facts, and certain inferences that the UFTA allows us to draw, to
carry his burden of proof. While not free from all doubt with
respect to Steven’s intent or belief, the stipulated facts (and
inferences we may draw from those facts), when considered in
light of petitioner’s testimony, fail to persuade us that Steven
had the necessary fraudulent intent or that Steven unreasonably
believed that he could pay his debts as they came due. See Fla.
Stat. sec. 726.105(1)(a) and (b)2. Also, respondent has failed
to persuade us of Steven’s insolvency. Since certain conclusions
best reached in our consideration of Fla. Stat. sec. 726.106(1)
are also necessary to our consideration of Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1), we will examine such latter section first.
2. Fla. Stat. Sec. 726.106
a. Introduction
To prevail under Fla. Stat. sec. 726.106, respondent must
show, among other things, either that, at the time of the
transfer, Steven was insolvent or, as a result of the transfer,
he became insolvent. See Fla. Stat. sec. 726.106(1). Respondent
has failed to make either showing.
b. Fla. Stat. Sec. 726.103(1)
Under Fla. Stat. sec. 726.103(1), a debtor is insolvent if
the sum of his debts is greater than the fair value of all of his
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011