- 23 -
on account of finding the property, he would share in the profit
from developing the property. The arrangement among petitioner,
Steven, petitioner’s father-in-law, and John Richards to acquire,
improve, and sell the property was in the nature of a joint
venture (the joint venture). The Van Aernams were to take title
to the property as trustees or, in some other capacity, as
custodians of title on behalf of the joint venturers. The joint
venture plan was abandoned sometime after Steven’s indictment.
In recognition of such abandonment, and anticipating John
Richards’ efforts to recover his investment in the joint venture,
Steven conveyed the property to petitioner by the second
quitclaim deed. Petitioner received the property from Steven in
recognition of her own interest and subject to the interests of
John Richards and her father-in-law (and also Steven).
Considering the four factors in light of petitioner’s
testimony (and the fifth factor, favorable to petitioner, of
disclosure), we decline to infer from the factors listed in Fla.
Stat. sec. 726.105(2) that Steven’s actual intent was to hinder,
delay, or defraud any creditor of his in connection with the
transfer.
Respondent offers no other basis for us to find a
fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1)(a). There are numerous persons other than petitioner
who could have shed light on the Pelican Avenue transaction.
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