Whether the money transfer be treated as fraudulent transfer?

[donjim]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I am a judgment debtor. After the law suit was filed, I have transferred several thousand dollars of money to one of my relatives X, who was in dire financial and family situation. He agreed to pay it back later on. However, another relative Y paid me back the same amount of money to me, on behalf of X, in several installments, over a long span of time, because X was not in a position to pay and Y was also not in a position to pay the amount in one shot. The last payment/installment I received from Y was just a few days ago. All these agreements between us were made orally (word of mouth). All these transfers were done through bank checks and we have solid proofs. In the payment checks, written by Y to me, he left “For” column blank (i.e., he did not mention why he is paying that money to me). Now my question is: as per Florida Statute Chapter 726 or statute 56.29 or any other Florida law, whether the money that I transferred to X will be treated as fraudulent transfer if the creditor file a proceedings supplementary now (the creditor has not yet initiated it)? If necessary, both X and Y are ready to testify on what has happened.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I am a judgment debtor. After the law suit was filed, I have transferred several thousand dollars of money to one of my relatives X, who was in dire financial and family situation. He agreed to pay it back later on. However, another relative Y paid me back the same amount of money to me, on behalf of X, in several installments, over a long span of time, because X was not in a position to pay and Y was also not in a position to pay the amount in one shot. The last payment/installment I received from Y was just a few days ago. All these agreements between us were made orally (word of mouth). All these transfers were done through bank checks and we have solid proofs. In the payment checks, written by Y to me, he left “For” column blank (i.e., he did not mention why he is paying that money to me). Now my question is: as per Florida Statute Chapter 726 or statute 56.29 or any other Florida law, whether the money that I transferred to X will be treated as fraudulent transfer if the creditor file a proceedings supplementary now (the creditor has not yet initiated it)? If necessary, both X and Y are ready to testify on what has happened.

You loaned money and got it back. I do not see how that can be considered to be a transfer at all.

 

[quincy]

You should be adding these latest questions to one of your threads already in progress. Thanks.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/debt-collections-84/total-life-span-money-judgment-life-span-liens-personal-property-636649.html

https://forum.freeadvice.com/debt-collections-84/garnishment-retirement-accounts-636632.html

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

I am a judgment debtor. After the law suit was filed, I have transferred several thousand dollars of money to one of my relatives X, who was in dire financial and family situation. He agreed to pay it back later on. However, another relative Y paid me back the same amount of money to me, on behalf of X, in several installments, over a long span of time, because X was not in a position to pay and Y was also not in a position to pay the amount in one shot. The last payment/installment I received from Y was just a few days ago. All these agreements between us were made orally (word of mouth). All these transfers were done through bank checks and we have solid proofs. In the payment checks, written by Y to me, he left “For” column blank (i.e., he did not mention why he is paying that money to me). Now my question is: as per Florida Statute Chapter 726 or statute 56.29 or any other Florida law, whether the money that I transferred to X will be treated as fraudulent transfer if the creditor file a proceedings supplementary now (the creditor has not yet initiated it)? If necessary, both X and Y are ready to testify on what has happened.

Without much more information there is no way for anyone here to know whether the transfer to X was fraudulent within the Florida statutory definition at F. S. 726.105, or whether it was a fraudulent loan as defined in F. S. 726.201. But it was most certainly a "transfer" as defined in Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. And I I were Mr. X, I would be getting a bit nervous.

With respect to F. S. 56.29 any judgment creditor holding an unsatisfied judgment can take advantage of the post judgment measures so afforded.

 

[donjim]

Thanks Quincy, I will not create new threads later for similar questions, apologize.

latigo: thanks.

Let me make my questions straight forward:

(1). 726.105(1)(b) states: "Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation.." does it mean

Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, FROM THE TRANSFEREE ONLY, for the transfer or obligation.. or
Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY (WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSFEREE), for the transfer or obligation...

I believe the second choice is correct but wish to get your feedback.

(2). 725.105(2)(h) states "The value of the consideration received by the debtor.." does it mean

The value of the consideration received by the debtor FROM THE TRANSFEREE ONLY... or
The value of the consideration received by the debtor FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY...

Again, I believe the second choice is correct but wish to get your feedback.

 

[donjim]

Could someone provide a response to my questions?

 

[LdiJ]

Could someone provide a response to my questions?

I can do no more than repeat my previous advice. You loaned money, you got it back, done deal.

 

[latigo]

Thanks Quincy, I will not create new threads later for similar questions, apologize.

latigo: thanks.

Let me make my questions straight forward:

(1). 726.105(1)(b) states: "Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation.." does it mean

Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, FROM THE TRANSFEREE ONLY, for the transfer or obligation.. or
Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY (WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSFEREE), for the transfer or obligation...

I believe the second choice is correct but wish to get your feedback.

(2). 725.105(2)(h) states "The value of the consideration received by the debtor.." does it mean

The value of the consideration received by the debtor FROM THE TRANSFEREE ONLY... or
The value of the consideration received by the debtor FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY...

Again, I believe the second choice is correct but wish to get your feedback.

I thought you might have figured it out all by your natural born self. Not to be I guess.

Anyway, if the legislature had meant to place a restrictive construction on the above mentioned Sections as meaning that the "reasonably equivalent received in exchange for the transfer" MUST come from the transferee it would have said so. Nor would there be an purpose in doing so. Your error is in ignoring the words "in exchange" as it is what equivalent remains in the transferee that counts. The source of the "equivalent" is inconsequential. But it must be quid pro quo.

But in your scenario nothing was received in exchange from Y. Not at the time of the transfer and without something in writing signed by Y promising to answer for X's debt you would have no cause of action against Y. (see your state's statutes of fraud.) Ergo, nothing of equivalent value came "FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY (WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSFEREE".

But let's move on to something more absorbing like watching reruns of "Perry Mason" thrillers. Just don't place any money on Ham Burger. He couldn't convict Donald Duck of quackery.

 

[donjim]

I appreciate both the responses.

In response to: But in your scenario nothing was received in exchange from Y. Not at the time of the transfer and without something in writing signed by Y promising to answer for X's debt you would have no cause of action against Y. (see your state's statutes of fraud.) Ergo, nothing of equivalent value came "FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY (WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSFEREE".

All the money I received from Y was in exchange to what I loaned to X. X and Y are ready to testify this fact in the Court (or ready to give affidavits) if the judgment creditor ever files a fraudulent transfer claim or otherwise. I do agree with their testimony and I will also give a testimony or affidavit. Agreements can be made by word of mouth I believe and we three had the agreement. Basically I gave money to X and got the same amount of money in “exchange” from Y. The law does not say that I should receive the money from X (transferee) only. The law also does not say that I have to receive the money (in exchange) in one lump sum. As long as the money is paid back in exchange, prior to the filing of fraudulent transfer claim, then it would be enough (based on the law) I beleive.

As a comparison, I think, if I pay money to a contractor to do some work then another company (which has agreement with that contractor) can come and do the work (for me) as agreed by that company.

Please let me know if I am wrong.

 

[latigo]

I appreciate both the responses.

In response to: But in your scenario nothing was received in exchange from Y. Not at the time of the transfer and without something in writing signed by Y promising to answer for X's debt you would have no cause of action against Y. (see your state's statutes of fraud.) Ergo, nothing of equivalent value came "FROM SOME PERSON/ENTITY (WHO MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE TRANSFEREE".

All the money I received from Y was in exchange to what I loaned to X. X and Y are ready to testify this fact in the Court (or ready to give affidavits) if the judgment creditor ever files a fraudulent transfer claim or otherwise. I do agree with their testimony and I will also give a testimony or affidavit. Agreements can be made by word of mouth I believe and we three had the agreement. Basically I gave money to X and got the same amount of money in “exchange” from Y. The law does not say that I should receive the money from X (transferee) only. The law also does not say that I have to receive the money (in exchange) in one lump sum. As long as the money is paid back in exchange, prior to the filing of fraudulent transfer claim, then it would be enough (based on the law) I beleive.

As a comparison, I think, if I pay money to a contractor to do some work then another company (which has agreement with that contractor) can come and do the work (for me) as agreed by that company. Please let me know if I am wrong.

There is nothing here to debate. The only ambiguity in these laws is in your effort to misinterpret them. So let me suggest that you bundle up all of your "IF" questions and your irrelevant analogies tie then in a neat bow and present them somewhere else where someone may give a hoot. You are becoming a major annoyance.

 

[donjim]

I appreciate again.