Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors.
428.024. 1. A transfer made or obligation incurred by adebtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor'sclaim arose before or after the transfer was made or theobligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer orincurred the obligation:
(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud anycreditor of the debtor; or
(2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value inexchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
(a) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or atransaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor wereunreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or
(b) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably shouldhave believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability topay as they became due.
2. In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) ofsubsection 1 of this section, consideration may be given, amongother factors, to whether:
(1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;
(2) The debtor retained possession or control of theproperty transferred after the transfer;
(3) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(4) Before the transfer was made or obligation wasincurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor'sassets;
(6) The debtor absconded;
(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;
(8) The value of the consideration received by the debtorwas reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferredor the amount of the obligation incurred;
(9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortlyafter the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly aftera substantial debt was incurred; and
(11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of thebusiness to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider ofthe debtor.
(L. 1992 S.B. 448)
(2004) Failure to specifically plead theory of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego does not preclude creditor from recovering under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fischer v. Brancato, 147 S.W.3d 794 (Mo.App.E.D.).
Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors.
428.024. 1. A transfer made or obligation incurred by adebtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor'sclaim arose before or after the transfer was made or theobligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer orincurred the obligation:
(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud anycreditor of the debtor; or
(2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value inexchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
(a) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or atransaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor wereunreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or
(b) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably shouldhave believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability topay as they became due.
2. In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) ofsubsection 1 of this section, consideration may be given, amongother factors, to whether:
(1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;
(2) The debtor retained possession or control of theproperty transferred after the transfer;
(3) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(4) Before the transfer was made or obligation wasincurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor'sassets;
(6) The debtor absconded;
(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;
(8) The value of the consideration received by the debtorwas reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferredor the amount of the obligation incurred;
(9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortlyafter the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly aftera substantial debt was incurred; and
(11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of thebusiness to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider ofthe debtor.
(L. 1992 S.B. 448)
(2004) Failure to specifically plead theory of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego does not preclude creditor from recovering under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fischer v. Brancato, 147 S.W.3d 794 (Mo.App.E.D.).
Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors.
428.024. 1. A transfer made or obligation incurred by adebtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor'sclaim arose before or after the transfer was made or theobligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer orincurred the obligation:
(1) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud anycreditor of the debtor; or
(2) Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value inexchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:
(a) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or atransaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor wereunreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or
(b) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably shouldhave believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability topay as they became due.
2. In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) ofsubsection 1 of this section, consideration may be given, amongother factors, to whether:
(1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider;
(2) The debtor retained possession or control of theproperty transferred after the transfer;
(3) The transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(4) Before the transfer was made or obligation wasincurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor'sassets;
(6) The debtor absconded;
(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;
(8) The value of the consideration received by the debtorwas reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferredor the amount of the obligation incurred;
(9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortlyafter the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred;
(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly aftera substantial debt was incurred; and
(11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of thebusiness to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider ofthe debtor.
(L. 1992 S.B. 448)
(2004) Failure to specifically plead theory of piercing the corporate veil or alter ego does not preclude creditor from recovering under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fischer v. Brancato, 147 S.W.3d 794 (Mo.App.E.D.).
