- 11 -
was to an insider; (2) whether the transfer was of “substantially
all” the debtor’s assets; (3) whether the debtor was insolvent or
became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made; and (4)
whether the transfer was made shortly before or after a
substantial debt was incurred. Fla. Stat. sec. 726.105(2)(a),
(e), (i), (j) (1988). As discussed below, all these factors
indicate fraudulent intent in the instant case.
1. Whether the Transfer Was to an Insider
In the case of a corporation, an “insider” includes a
director or an officer of the corporation. Fla. Stat. sec.
726.102(7)(b) (1988). The parties have stipulated that
petitioner was a shareholder, director, and officer of ACT.
“In Florida, existing creditors have the benefit of a presumption
of fraudulent intent where the conveyance is voluntary and there
is a close relationship between the transferor and the
transferee.” Hagaman v. Commissioner, supra at 188; see Scott v.
Dansby, 334 So. 2d 331, 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976).10
10 Hagaman v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 180 (1993), was decided
under Fla. Stat. sec. 726.01, which was repealed and replaced by
provisions of the UFTA, effective Jan. 1, 1988. Scott v. Dansby,
334 So. 2d 331 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976), was decided under
Florida law governing fraudulent conveyances, which was codified
in Fla. Stat. sec. 726.01 (1988). Unless displaced by the
express provisions of the new act, the principles, law, and
equity under Fla. Stat. 726.01 remain intact and supplement the
provisions of the UFTA. See Fla. Stat. sec. 726.111 (1988);
Advest, Inc. v. Rader, 743 F. Supp. 851, 854 n.9 (S.D. Fla.
1990).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011