- 19 -
d. Conclusion
Respondent has failed to prove that, with respect to the
United States, Steven made a fraudulent transfer within the
meaning of Fla. Stat. sec. 726.106(1).
3. Fla. Stat. Sec. 726.105
a. Introduction
To prevail under Fla. Stat. sec. 726.105(1), respondent
must show that the transfer was made either with (1) fraudulent
intent or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in
exchange, and the debtor knew, or should have known, his debts
would be beyond his ability to pay as they fell due. Respondent
has failed to make either showing.
b. Fla. Stat. Sec. 726.105(1)(a)
To prevail under Fla. Stat. sec. 726.105(1)(a), respondent
must show, among other things, that the transfer was made with
“actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the
debtor”. Fla. Stat. sec. 726.105(2) provides that, in
determining actual intent, consideration may be given to (but is
not limited to) several factors. Respondent directs our
attention to the following of those factors:
1. The transfer was to an insider (including a relative).
2. Before the transfer was made, the debtor had been sued
or threatened with suit.
3. The transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s
assets.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011