- 16 -
The enumerated factors are not exhaustive or exclusive,11 and
there is no magic number needed to determine the required
intent.12 Tiab Communications Corp. v. Keymarket of NEPA, Inc.,
263 F. Supp. 2d 925, 935 (M.D. Pa. 2003). Even conduct
subsequent to the transfer may demonstrate the intent that
existed at the time of the transfer. Iscovitz v. Filderman, 6
A.2d 270, 272 (Pa. 1939).
Many of the enumerated indicia are present in this case:
(1) Self Oil was already insolvent or made insolvent by virtue of
the transfer; (2) the transfer was to a corporation owned by
family members who were former employees of the transferor and
11We note that the statute specifically provides:
“consideration may be given, among other factors”. See 12 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 5104(b) (West 1999) (emphasis added).
12The committee comment to 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 5104
states in pertinent part:
(5) Subsection (b) below is a nonexclusive catalogue of
factors appropriate for consideration by the court in
determining whether the debtor had an actual intent to
hinder, delay or defraud one or more creditors. Proof
of the existence of any one or more of the factors
enumerated in subsection (b) may be relevant evidence
as to the debtor’s actual intent but does not create a
presumption that the debtor has made a fraudulent
transfer or incurred a fraudulent obligation. * * * The
fact that a transfer has been made to a relative or to
an affiliated corporation has not been regarded as a
badge of fraud sufficient to warrant avoidance when
unaccompanied by any other evidence of fraud. The
courts have uniformly recognized, however, that a
transfer to a closely related person warrants close
scrutiny of the other circumstances, including the
nature and extent of the consideration exchanged. * * *
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011