- 13 -
property transfers. See 2 Restatement, Conflict of Laws 2d, sec.
223 (1971).
When petitioner assigned his mineral interests to Mrs.
Grynberg, fraudulent transfer statutes existed under prior
enactments in all 10 States. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. sec.
38–10–117 (1973) (“Every conveyance or assignment in writing * *
* of any * * * interest in lands * * * made with the intent to
hinder, delay, or defraud creditors or other persons of their
lawful suits, damages, * * * debts, or demands * * * shall be
void.”).6 The object of these laws is to protect creditors by
invalidating transfers that would otherwise render the debtors’
assets unreachable.
The parties have stipulated that petitioner’s sole purpose
in making the transfers was to prevent the Danzig claimants from
gaining possession of those assets. As far as form of the
transfers is concerned, it is true that they were effected by
proper deeds; title to the mineral interests was, indeed, in Mrs.
Grynberg’s name. Our concern, however, lies not with
6See also Ariz. Rev. Stat. sec. 44–1007 (1987) (repealed in
1990 and replaced with the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
(UFTA)); Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 566.221 (1979); Miss. Code Ann.
sec. 15–3–3 (1972); Mont. Code Ann. sec. 31–2–314 (1989)
(repealed in 1991 with adoption of UFTA); N.M. Stat. Ann. sec.
56–10–7 (Michie 1978) (repealed in 1989 with adoption of UFTA);
N.D. Cent. Code sec. 13–01–05 (1981) (repealed in 1985 with
adoption of UFTA); Okla. Stat. tit. 24, sec. 105 (1971) (repealed
in 1986 with adoption of UFTA); Utah Code Ann. sec. 25–1–8 (1953)
(repealed in 1988 with adoption of UFTA); Wyo. Stat. Ann. sec.
34–14–108 (Michie 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011