- 22 -
Petitioner argues that there was no such preference because
“Every creditor with non-contingent claims were [sic] paid in
full.” Petitioner’s argument fails because PUFTA makes no
distinction between contingent and noncontingent liabilities.
Specifically, PUFTA defines “claim” as “A right to payment,
whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated,
unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed,
undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured.” 12 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. sec. 5101 (West 1999) (emphasis added); see id.
sec. 5104, cmt. (6)(d); United States v. St. Mary, 334 F. Supp.
799, 803 (E.D. Pa. 1971) (“for the purpose of the law of
fraudulent conveyances, a contingent liability has the same
status as one which is fixed”); People’s Sav. & Dime Bank & Trust
Co. v. Scott, 154 A. 489 (Pa. 1931); Lafayette Manor, Inc. v.
Carroll, 12 Pa. D.&C.3d 139, 145 (1979).
Petitioner further argues: “To successfully attack a
transfer as fraudulent under the Act it is necessary that the
creditors be prejudiced by the transfer, even where there is
actual fraudulent intent.” Petitioner cites no authority which
interprets Pennsylvania’s fraudulent conveyance law or PUFTA. In
any event, the record does demonstrate that an unpaid creditor
was harmed or prejudiced by the transfer. The record shows that
Self Oil preferred the unsecured obligations owed to Mr. Self,
Sr., rather than those owed to the contingent creditors. Mr.
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