Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fraudulent Transfers And Juries: Was Granfinanciera Rightly Decided?, David G. Carlson
Fraudulent Transfers And Juries: Was Granfinanciera Rightly Decided?, David G. Carlson
Faculty Articles
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that a third party recipient of a fraudulent conveyance had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial when a bankruptcy trustee brought suit for a money judgment under Bankruptcy Code section 550(a). This was because, in 1791, an English bankruptcy trustee would have brought fraudulent transfer litigation in a court of law (not a court of equity) and would have obtained a money judgment. I maintain that the Supreme Court committed the classical logical error of Quaternio Terminorum—a false analogy. The analogy was that American bankruptcy trustees are like 18th century English bankruptcy …
Fraudulent Transfer As A Tort, David G. Carlson
Fraudulent Transfer As A Tort, David G. Carlson
Faculty Articles
Fraudulent transfer law has historically been an in rem right of a creditor to property fraudulently received by a third party. In a minority of states, courts have treated fraudulent transfers as creating an in personam liability of the transferring debtor, the recipient, and any other third party who "conspired" with the transferor to achieve the transfer. This Article examines the wisdom of this modern trend and finds it wanting. The United States Supreme Court in 1861 was correct: fraudulent transfers are not wrongs. They merely create in rem rights.
Fraudulent Transfers: Void And Voidable, David G. Carlson
Fraudulent Transfers: Void And Voidable, David G. Carlson
Faculty Articles
This Article explores the civil procedure attendant to private fraudulent transfer litigation (primarily outside the context of bankruptcy). In such litigation, courts ponder whether fraudulent transfers are void or voidable. In fact, they are both simultaneously! According to the theory "at law," a fraudulent transfer is "void." That is, a creditor with a judgment could simply levy the property from a fraudulent grantee as if the grantee had no property rights. This Article questions the constitutional viability of this ancient attitude. Meanwhile, "equity" viewed the transfer as voidable. The grantee gets title, but the title might be set aside. The …