Adkisson's Voidable Transactions - previously known as - Fraudulent Transfers

Caution state

law variances!

Does The Transferee Have A Defense?

If an avoidable transaction is found, then the next question is whether the Transferee has a defense. The UVTA provides for only two defenses:




Assuming the Creditor's action is timely, the Transferee is left with showing that the Transferee was in "good faith" and gave at least something of value to the Debtor in exchange — this latter clause will decide whether a good faith Transferee has a complete defense (if the Transferee gave "reasonably equivalent value" to the Debtor, or a possible partial defense (if the Transferee did not, but did give some lesser value). By inference, if a Transferee is not in good faith, then the Transferee is neither entitled to a full or partial defense, except as provided in §8(e) and (f).


The term "good faith" is not defined by the UVTA, so we must look to decisional law for guidance on its meaning.


Here we find yet another significant mis-organization of the UVTA. The Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act of 1918 did not separately provide for a good faith defense. Instead, that the Transferee was in good faith was part and parcel of the definition of "fair consideration" under §3 of the UFCA. When the UFCA became the UFTA in 1984, and the term "fair consideration" was discarded, a new §9(a) and (d) was created to provide for the defense of a Transferee in good faith. This made sense.


What didn't make sense was that in the new §9 of the UFTA, the drafters also included a new §9(b) and (c) which for the first time provided that a creditor could elect a money judgment to be paid by the Transferee instead of mere avoidance. These provisions should logically have been put in the also-new creditor's remedies section, which became §7 of the UFTA, but apparently because they also tested the Transferee's good faith, they were instead installed in §8.


What of the debtor's good faith? Other than being evidence to prove that the debtor did not have an intent to defraud his creditors, which of course is only and exclusively relevant to the Intent Test of § 4(a)(1), that the debtor may have acted in good faith in making the transfer is irrelevant.


UVTA - Logical Organization (Designed For Litigators)

Click here to go to the Voidable Transactions Decision Chart

Overview of UVTA -- The process and result


UVTA - Numerical Organization (Confusing & Difficult To Use)

The Uniform Law Commission's complete copy of the UVTA with comments in PDF format is available here. The webpage for the UVTA, showing states that have enacted and much other information regarding the Act is found here.


1 - Definitions

(1) Affiliate -- (2) Asset -- (3) Claim -- (4) Creditor -- (5) Debt -- (6) Debtor -- (7) Electronic -- (8) Insider -- (9) Lien -- (10) Organization -- (11) Person -- (12) Property -- (13) Record -- (14) Relative -- (15) Sign -- (16) Transfer -- (17) Valid Lien

2 - Insolvency

3 - Value

4 - Transfer Or Obligation Voidable As To Present Or Future Creditor

(a)(1) {Intent Test} -- (a)(2)(i) {Capitalization Test} -- (a)(2)(ii) Equity-Sense Insolvency Test

(b) {Badges of Fraud}

5 - Transfer or Obligation Voidable As To Present Creditor

(a) {Insolvency Test} -- (b) {Insider Preference Test}

6 - When Transfer Is Made Or Obligation Is Incurred

7 - Remedies Of Creditor

8 - Defenses, Liability, And Protection Of Transferee Or Obligee

{Main Provisions} -- (b) and (c) {Money Judgment}

9 - Extinguishment Of Claim For Relief

10 - Governing Law

11 - Application To Series Organization

12 - Supplementary Provisions

13 - Uniformity Of Application And Construction

14 - Relation To Electronic Signatures In Global And National Commerce

15 - Short Title

16 - Repeals; Conforming Amendment


Fraudulent Transfers In Bankruptcy



Other Websites By Jay Adkisson

© 2017 Jay D. Adkisson. All rights reserved. No claim to government works or the works of the Uniform Law Commission. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction.  This site Contact: jay [at] or by phone to 949-200-7773 or by fax to 877-698-0678.