- 24 -
Respondent failed to call any of them. Respondent has failed to
prove a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1)(a).
c. Fla. Stat. Sec. 726.105(1)(b)
Respondent seeks to prevail under Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1)(b) by showing that Steven made the transfer “[w]ithout
receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange”, and when he
“[i]ntended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have
believed that he * * * would incur, debts beyond * * * his
ability to pay as they became due.” Fla. Stat. sec.
726.105(1)(b)2. To satisfy the intent or belief element in the
statute, respondent relies on what Steven reasonably should have
believed, not on what he intended or actually believed: “Steven
W. Van Aernam * * * reasonably should have believed that he would
soon incur debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due at
the time he made * * * [the] transfer.” Respondent argues that
Steven had already accrued substantial debts to the Internal
Revenue Service and: “With the impending criminal fine of as
much as $250,000.00, Steven W. Van Aernam reasonably should have
believed that, on July 25, 1995, he would soon incur debts beyond
his ability to pay as they became due.”
First, respondent has failed to prove that the transfer
was not made for reasonably equivalent value. We have found that
Steven contributed no money to the purchase of the property, yet,
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