- 107 -
re Smith, 120 Bankr. 588, 591-592 (M.D. Fla. 1990); Sebring Co.
v. O'Rourke, 101 Fla. 885, 134 So. 556, 562 (1931). “Good
consideration is that which would support a simple contract.” In
re Smith, supra at 592 (citing Parts Depot, Inc. v. Bullock, 545
So. 2d 468, 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)). Thus, "To
constitute a fraudulent conveyance, there must be a creditor to
be defrauded, a debtor intending fraud, and a conveyance of
property which is applicable by law to the payment of the debt
due." Bay View Estates Corp. v. Southerland, 114 Fla. 635, 650,
154 So. 894, 900 (1934), overruled en banc on another issue Lott,
Inc. v. Padgett, 153 Fla. 304, 14 So. 2d 667, 669 (1943); see
also United States v. Fernon, 640 F.2d 609, 613 (5th Cir. 1981).
Under Florida case law, “a creditor is one who has asserted a
legal claim or demand of contractual nature when the alleged
fraudulent conveyance is made.” Advest, Inc. v. Rader, supra at
854, (citing Whetstone v. Coslick, 117 Fla. 203, 157 So. 666
(1934)).
To prove a fraudulent conveyance under Fla. Stat. section
726.01, a creditor may (1) establish a prima facie case by
showing the presence of certain “badges of fraud” which gave a
rebuttable inference of fraud, or (2) demonstrate actual
fraudulent intent. Advest, Inc. v. Rader, supra. The "badges of
fraud" include, among other things: (1) The transfer of property
without valuable consideration, (2) a family relationship between
Page: Previous 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011