Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...The unsecured creditors committee seeks to set aside as fraudulent transfers payments that the debtor made to TKA, M & D, Liberty, and the individual defendants pursuant to the provisions of Sections 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The committee also seeks the same relief pursuant to Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...e only other badge of fraud was insolvency]. Indeed, under Florida law, any transfer made in payment of an antecedent debt to an insider who knew or should have known that the debtor was insolvent at the time of payment is constructively fraudulent. § 726.106(2), Fla....

...The third badge of fraud present in this case is the lack of equivalent value for some or all of the transfers at issue. This badge is also one of the elements required to prove constructive fraud pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes....

...The final "badge of fraud" implicated in this case is the debtor's insolvency, either at the time of or as a result of the transfer. This badge of fraud is another element required to prove constructive fraud pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...ility to pay as such debts matured. "If the required elements of this provision are established, a conclusive presumption of fraud arises." Pittsburgh Cut Flower, 124 B.R. at 456 ( citing 4 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 548.03 at 548-550 (15th ed.1990)). Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, is the state law equivalent to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...There can be no question, therefore, that the plaintiff's claims arose before the transfers at issue in this case. Accordingly, the court will consider the federal and the state claims together. In analyzing the claims of fraudulent transfer in relation to the elements of Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, as to each transfer the court reaches the same conclusions on the elements described below for the same reasons as the court described in Section V.D.2.a.iv....

...[151] In the circumstances, the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the transfers at issue, with the exception of those noted below, were constructively fraudulent pursuant to Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.105, Florida Statutes, and is a fraudulent transfer. Although the plaintiff has failed to establish that some of the transfers are constructively fraudulent under Section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, the plaintiff did establish that these transfers were actually fraudulent....

...he debtor's transfers found to be preferential or fraudulent in this proceeding. 6. Liability under Florida law. The court determined in Section V.D. above that many of the transfers at issue here were fraudulent transfers under Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...ns of this Section V.E. above. Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiff has established the defendants' liability under Florida law as follows: • TKA and M & D are the first transferees of the transfers avoided under Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes. • Liberty, Morrow, Angle, and Woodward, are subsequent transferees other than good faith transferees who took for value of the transfers avoided under Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...he debtor, with aggregate claims that exceed in dollar amount the avoided transfers. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from the defendants only in the amount of the value of the transfers avoided as fraudulent under Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes....

...In the court's view, such an offset would be inequitable and inappropriate in the circumstances of this case because the July 6, 1989, overpayment was made in direct violation of the confirmed plan, in bad faith, and to insiders in advance of most other plan dividends. [150] Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfe...

...*** This amount represents M & D's payment to Woodward of interest and "profit" on July 6, 1989, $892.46, plus its payment of $10,000 on or after December 29, 1989. [163] There is no equivalent to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code in Florida Statutes (although transfers avoided pursuant to Section 726.106(2) are occasionally referred to as preferences in the case law)....

...(2002). A transfer is fraudulent if made "without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation." § 726.106(1), Fla....

...The elements of constructive fraud are also established based on the undisputed facts. In addition to codifying the law regarding actual fraud, the UFTA creates a statutory category of constructive fraud to protect present creditors, recognizing certain transactions as fraudulent without regard to the debtor's intent. § 726.106(1), Fla....

...er the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if *1276 the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (a) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor;.... 726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.— (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfe...

...(2002). A transfer is fraudulent if made "without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation." § 726.106(1), Fla....

...Together with this breach of contract claim, Invo, asserting it is a creditor of Somerset by virtue of the breach of the agreement, also raised claims under Chapter 726, Florida Statutes (1991), Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). Invo alleged in Count II, fraudulent transfer as to present creditors (§ 726.106(1), Florida Statutes), against Somerset, Landa, Ambrosio, individually and as trustees of the assets of Somerset, C & L Somerset Lakes, Inc., L & L on Oakland Park Blvd., Inc., Carole Cohen Landa; and Leo Landau; in Count III, fraudulent transfer between insiders (§ 726.106(2), Florida Statutes), against Somerset, Landa, Ambrosio, individually and as trustees of the assets of Somerset, C & L Somerset Lakes, Inc., L & L on Oakland Park Blvd., Inc., Carole Cohen Landa and Leo Landau; and in Count IV, fraudulent...

...To prove the fraudulent transfers alleged in Counts II, III and IV under the UFTA, Invo would have to prove a different set of facts. For example, as Invo illustrates in their Initial Brief, in Count II of the Amended Complaint, Invo must prove all the elements *1266 for defrauding a present creditor under section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes. Invo can do this by proving that Somerset transferred the property in question without Invo receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and that Somerset was insolvent or became so after the transfer. See § 726.106(1), Fla....

...NOTES [1] Likewise, for Invo to prove fraudulent transfer between insiders in Count III and fraudulent transfer as to present or future creditors in Count IV, it needs to prove a different set of elements than those required for breach of contract. See §§ 726.106(2) and 726.105, Fla....

...ubstantially the same, and both address claims under the same legal framework. See In re Toy King Distributors, Inc., 256 B.R. 1, 126-27, 143 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2000) (treating § 726.105 as state law equivalent of 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) and treating § 726.106 as state law equivalent of § 548(a)(1)(B)); In re Stewart, 280 B.R....

...In addition, courts take into account “the particular facts surrounding the conveyance,” and avoid de *1499 termining in a vacuum the presence or absence of a debtor’s actual intent to hinder or delay a creditor. Kirk v. Edinger, 380 So.2d 1336, 1337 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1980). Finally, Fla. Stat. § 726.106 is potentially applicable to this ease....

...not receive a reasonably equivalent value for the transfers; or, (2) the debt- or made the transfer to an insider, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. Id. Applying Fla. Stats. § 56.29(6)(a), § 726.105 and § 726.106, the magistrate judge concluded that Power Depot had not been the recipient of a fraudulent transfer....

...TV Programs v. U.E. Enterprises, 996 F.2d 21 (2d Cir.1993). . The magistrate judge found the above transfers to be fraudulent under one or more of the following Florida statutes: Fla. Stat. § 56.29 (a), Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (1)(a), and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 ....

...in applying and interpreting the UFTA. . Indeed, if the transfer was not made for fair value, and if GTI was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer, no proof of fraudulent intent would be necessary to find a fraudulent transfer. Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1)....

...entities (or alternatively, without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange) and with the knowledge that a debt was owed to Quercia and Agro. Count IV: Violation of Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (section 726.106, Florida Statutes), by Quercia and Agro against LP, Lending, Agritrade Investments, Agri Commodity Trade, LLC, Galo Group Limited (“Galo”), and Curbelo, alleging at least $9.5 million was transferred to the alter...

...Remex also asserts that it is entitled to bankruptcy relief because Axl has engaged in preferential transfers of a significant portion of its assets. The requirements for filing an avoidance action to set aside a preferential transfer are set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 547, and Fla.Stat. § 726.106(2)....

...The Glick Claimants contend that Alan Rader fraudulently transferred assets to the joint account, with the intent and effect of hindering, delaying and defrauding his creditors. Florida Statute 726.01 (repealed in 1988, and replaced by Florida Statute 726.106 "Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act" (1988)), codifies the Florida law governing fraudulent conveyances....

...The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act The court reaches the same result under the act which replaced section 726.01 in 1988, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Fla.Stat. § 726.101, et seq. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act codifies much of the pre-existing law under the earlier statute. [16] Section 726.106 of the new act disregards intent, and provides that a conveyance is per se fraudulent where the creditor's claim arose prior to the transfer, the transfer lacks valid consideration, and the debtor was insolvent prior to the transfer....

...led to reflect joint ownership by Alan and Louise Rader. [18] He also acknowledges that he has not paid any of the judgment. Because, as noted above, there was no reasonably equivalent consideration for the transfer, the transfer is fraudulent under § 726.106(1), and must be voided to the extent necessary to satisfy the Glick Claimants' claim....

...filed. Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P. permits an adverse party to serve opposing affidavits at any time prior to the hearing date. Accordingly, the Raders' affidavits were properly filed, and the motion is appropriately denied. [16] See fn. 9, supra. [17] § 726.106 provides, in relevant part, as follows: (1) A transfer made ......

...In Count I the Trustee seeks to avoid the fraudulent transfer of property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) and Florida Statutes § 726.105(1)(a); the Claim in Count II is based 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) and Fla.Stat. § 726.105(1)(b) and the claim on Count III is based on 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) and Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...It is the Trustee's contention that both the "First and the Second Transfers" were fraudulent transfers, thus by virtue of § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee may avoid these transfers by relying on the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Statute of Florida, Fla.Stat. 726.105, et seq. and 726.106, et seq....

...While one might suspect that this is the case, this is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof as it relates to the Claim in Count II of the Complaint. The Trustee in Count III seeks to avoid transfers of property pursuant to Code section 544(b) and Fla.Stat. § 726.106. Florida Statute 726.106(1) provides: "a transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without r...

...s not included as an asset to the extent it is not subject to process by a creditor holding a claim against only one tenant. Based on the foregoing there is sufficient evidence to find that the First Transfer was *307 also fraudulent under Fla.Stat. 726.106(1) and thus avoidable by the Trustee pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...of principal" (Count I), "false profits" (Count III), and "other transfers" purportedly for household and family expenses (Count V). Each claim is brought pursuant to three subsections of FUFTA: Fla. Stat. § 726.105( l )(a), § 726.105( l )(b), and § 726.106(1), which include different elements of proof....

...or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1). The third basis for the Receiver's FUTA claims, § 726.106(1), provides another constructive fraud theory, but is restricted to present creditors....

...This section allows present creditors to avoid transfers made by a debtor "without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation." Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...Waxenberg's principal investment are for reasonably equivalent value, as a matter of law. See In re Leneve, 341 B.R. 53, 62 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2006). While the Receiver cites no case to the contrary to preclude summary judgment on the constructive fraud claims pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105( l )(b) and § 726.106(1), he maintains that for the purposes of the actual fraud claims under § 726.105( l )(a)—which do not involve the issue of reasonably equivalent value—Mrs....

...brought pursuant to § 726.105(1)(a). See, e.g., Donell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762 (9th Cir.2008); Scholes, 56 F.3d at 757. Mrs. Waxenberg is, however, entitled to summary judgment on the portion of Count I pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105( l )(b) and § 726.106(1), and her motion is GRANTED IN PART to this extent....

...hey may have property belonging to the debtor. In determining whether a transfer to a third party is invalid, as a fraud on creditors, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) applies. The bank sought to impose liability under sections 726.105 and 726.106 of the act....

...Pursuant to the statutory scheme, the creditor is to demonstrate that: (1) there was a creditor to be defrauded; (2) a debtor intending fraud; and (3) a conveyance of property which could have been applicable to the payment of the debt due. Huntsman Pckg'g Corp. v. Kerry Pckg'g Corp., 992 F.Supp. 1439, 1446 (M.D.Fla.1998). Section 726.106, Florida Statutes, provides that: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incur...

...While it was certainly permissible for Maczko to withdraw her share, to the extent that the withdrawal also included her husband's share, it cannot be determined that a fraudulent transfer did not occur. Although it is true that sections 726.105 and 726.106 both describe fraudulent transfers as those "made ......

...nces. Id. Here, remaining issues of fact remain as to the extent of Iacobelli's interest in the funds and as to the application of the several "badges of fraud," evidencing intent. We note that the bank's argument that liability is established under section 726.106 is not properly before this court, as it was not raised in the bank's cross-motion for summary judgment. The bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was based solely on section 726.105. [1] Therefore, the summary final judgment in favor of Maczko is reversed and we remand for further proceedings. POLEN, C.J. and GROSS, J., concur. NOTES [1] Under section 726.106, a transfer is fraudulent, without regard to intent, when two elements are met: (1) there is a transfer without consideration, and (2) the debtor either was insolvent at the time, or was made insolvent as a result of the transaction....

...Count I is an action to recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to § 548 and § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code; Count II is an action to recover fraudulent transfers pursuant to § 544 and § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statutes § 726.105(1)(b) and § 726.106(1); Count III is an action for equitable subordination pursuant to § 510 of the Bankruptcy Code; and Count IV is an action to disallow a claim pursuant to § 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code addresses obligations incurred and transfers made on or within one year before the date of the filing of the petition. Count II of the Committee's Amended Complaint is based on § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statutes § 726.105(1)(b) and § 726.106(1), and is to recover the value of property transferred pursuant to an obligation incurred more than one year and less than two years prior to the filing of the petition....

...ncluding state laws to void fraudulent transfers, by a creditor holding an allowable unsecured claim. Florida's laws regarding the avoidance of constructively fraudulent transfers are set forth in Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1) Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) provides: 726.105 Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors....

...assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. Florida Statute § 726.106(1) provides: 726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors....

...or transfer, and that certain obligations incurred or transfers made are fraudulent as to creditors with claims which arose before or after the obligation or transfer. In other material respects, Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1) are analogous "in form and substance" to § 548(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...ear before the date of the petition. Under section 544(b), the trustee may avoid a transfer made or an obligation incurred that is voidable under state law by a creditor with an allowable unsecured claim. For the obligation to be avoided pursuant to § 726.106, Fla.Stat., there must be a creditor with an allowable unsecured claim in this bankruptcy case which claim arose before the obligation was incurred....

...In Count XIII the Trustee seeks to recover from McDermott the same amount on a claim based on Section 544(b) Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b)(2). In Count XIV the Trustee seeks to recover the same amount from McDermott based on Section 544(b) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.106(1) and 726.109....

...Stat. § 726.105(1)(b)(1). The claim in Count XVII seeks to recover from CMSI the same amount based on 544(b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b)(2). In Count XVIII Trustee seeks to recover from CMSI the same amount based on Section 544(b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...THIS MATTER came before the Court for trial on August 7, 1998. Daniel L. Bakst, Trustee filed an amended adversary complaint which seeks to avoid and recover fraudulent conveyances pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 548 and Florida Statutes §§ 726.101, 726.105(1)(a), 726.105(1)(b), 726.106(1), and alternatively, to avoid and recover a preferential transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C....

...That complaint was later amended on July 8, 1998 to assert causes of action based upon fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code, upon a preferential transfer under Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, and upon fraudulent transfers under Florida Statutes §§ 727.105(1)(a) and (1)(b), and 726.106(1). See Fla.Stat. §§ 727.105(1)(a) and (1)(b) and 726.106(1) (1997)....

...Because the Court has found that the $80,000 and $50,000 transfers could not be fraudulent conveyances as a matter of law, the state law fraudulent transfer claims asserted by the Trustee are moot and will not be addressed. IV. THE TRANSFER OF THE MEMBERSHIP IS NOT VOIDABLE UNDER § 726.106(1) OR § 726.105(1)(b) BECAUSE THE DEBTOR RECEIVED REASONABLY EQUIVALENT VALUE UNDER § 726.104(1). Florida Statutes §§ 726.105(1)(b) [3] and 726.106(1) [4] deal with transfers made by a debtor without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the obligation while the debtor was insolvent or intended to incur or believed or should have believed that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due....

...Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case and the value of the Membership falling above the 70% guideline adhered to in this Circuit, the Court finds that the $20,000 credit constitutes reasonably equivalent value for the transfer of the Membership within the meaning of Florida Statutes §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1). Therefore, the transfer of the Membership was not a fraudulent conveyance within the purview of §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...The Court further finds that the transfers of $80,000 and $50,000 are proceeds of an exempt asset and thus could not be the subject of a fraudulent conveyance as a matter of law. In addition, the Court holds that the Membership was not fraudulently transferred within the purview of § 726.105(1)(b) and § 726.106(1) because the Debtor received reasonably equivalent value in exchange therefor....

...erally references stocks dealt in a securities exchange. [2] As indicated, the Trustee also asserts fraudulent conveyance claims under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, specifically, Florida Statutes §§ 726.105(1)(a), 726.105(1)(b), and 726.106 with respect to all three transfers....

...Under Florida Statutes § 726.110, these claims are not time-barred because the statute of limitations for these statutes is four years from the date the transfer was made. See Fla.Stat. § 726.110 (1997). [3] Set forth in full, infra, at footnote 6. [4] Florida Statute § 726.106(1), provides: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at the time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. See Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1) (1997)....

...Shahid as tenants by the entireties, and was thereby subject to levy to satisfy the appellant's judgment; (2) whether the various transfers of up to $50,000 from Beachside Café and Bar, a business allegedly owned by Mr. Shahid, to Mrs. Shahid were fraudulent transfers under section 726.106(2), Florida Statutes (1988); and (3) whether shares of capital stock in First Bank Crestview/FBC Holding Company, Inc....

...The court entered summary judgment finding that the affidavits and depositions conclusively showed that the debtors were not insolvent. Although we conclude that the record showed material issues of fact as to solvency, we conclude that those claims raised pursuant to section 726.106(2), Florida Statutes (2001), regarding transfers to insiders for antecedent debt, are all barred by the applicable statute of limitations. However, we conclude that those claims concerning profit distributions/compensation raised under section 726.106(1) are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations and have not been addressed in the motions or affidavits filed....

...y of the fourth amended complaint, it too moved for summary judgment. It alleged that a total of eight transfers from Central and Coastal to the appellees, which were designated as loan repayments of antecedent debts, were fraudulent transfers under section 726.106(2)....

...Various copies of the parties' depositions were filed, together with affidavits in support or defense of the cross motions. The cross motions were heard in October 2001. Thereafter, appellees filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment alleging that all of the claims raised by Paragon were based on section 726.106(2) and barred by the statute of limitations contained in section 726.110(3), Florida Statutes (2001)....

...Paragon responded through a letter to the court discussing the statute of limitations. The court ultimately granted appellees' motion for summary judgment and denied Paragon's motion, concluding that the evidence was undisputed that only two of the five elements required for a fraudulent transfer under section 726.106(2) were met. Paragon filed motions for reconsideration and clarification, both of which were denied, and summary judgment was thereupon entered, resulting in this appeal. I. Section 726.106(2) transfers are extinguished by the limitations in section 726.110(3). While we conclude that there is evidence in the record which creates a disputed issue of material fact with regard to the required elements of a fraudulent transfer under section 726.106(2), we nevertheless affirm because the applicable statute of limitations has extinguished the cause of action. Section 726.106(2) provides that: A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent....

...der s. 726.105(1)(a), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; (2) Under s. 726.105(1)(b) or s. 726.106(1), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) Under s. 726.106(2), within 1 year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred....

...preferential transfer within the four-year period, for actions based on section 726.105(1)(a) involving actual fraud, there is no such "discovery" provision under section 726.110(3) for transfers to insiders under the constructive fraud provision of section 726.106(2), the section relied upon by Paragon....

...ferential transfer, as does section 726.110(1)). Here, the legislature specifically provided a savings clause in section 726.110(1) and omitted it in section 726.110(3). The statute is clear and unambiguous and extinguishes the cause of action under section 726.106(2) one year after the date of the transfer....

...The last of the transfers identified by Paragon as repayment of antecedent debt occurred in February 1999. As the third party complaint against the appellees was not filed until June 23, 2000, all of the transfers occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the complaint. Therefore, the cause of action under section 726.106(2) is extinguished....

...tatement or one year from discovery of the fraudulent transfer in which to bring suit." Moreover, we were clearly discussing "badges of fraud" which are requirements of a fraudulent transfer under section 726.105. Thus, Segal is distinguishable. II. Section 726.106(1) transfers were not part of issues raised at summary judgment. Paragon also argues that the court failed to consider its allegations of preferential profit distributions under section 726.106(1), which has a four-year limitation under section 726.110(2)....

...ground for affirming on the profit distribution/compensation issue. We therefore reverse. Finally, the appellee wives claimed that they should not be liable for the transfers, which now are limited to the profit distribution/compensation claim under section 726.106(1), simply because the funds were transferred to a bank account which they held jointly with their husbands....

...Here there are no comparable facts. When and how long the funds remained in the joint account and what they were used for is simply absent from this record. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the final summary judgment insofar as it disposes of claims under section 726.106(2). We reverse and remand for further proceedings regarding the claim asserted under section 726.106(1) for improper compensation/profit distributions, and we reverse the summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee wives....

...Smith, the duly appointed and acting Trustee for Stephen L. Smith. Each of the counts in the Trustee's Complaint alleges a fraudulent transfer from the Debtor to the Defendants. Counts I through IV seek avoidance of the transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105 and § 726.106 (1988), the new Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) which became effective on January 1, 1988....

...Counts fail to state a cause of action against the Defendants upon which relief can be granted. It is undisputed that each of the allegedly fraudulent transfers transpired prior to January 1, 1988. The Defendants argue that Fla.Stat. § 726.105 and § 726.106 (1988) are not retrospective in application and, therefore, the new statute does not apply to transfers made prior to its effective date of January 1, 1988....

...Defendants again argue the Trustee has failed to plead these counts with particularity. The Court has addressed this argument and based on the discussion above, Defendants' motions to dismiss counts VIII, IX and X will be denied. VIII. Violation of Florida Statute § 726.105 and § 726.106 (Counts XI and XII) Defendants argue the Trustee has failed to state a cause of action under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Fla. Stat § 726. 101 et seq. The Trustee brings claims under Section 726.105 and 726.106. Although the Trustee does not indicate in the amended complaint under which subsections of § 726 the claims are brought, the Trustee in his response to Defendants' motions indicates the claims are brought under Sections 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...12  Case: 15-10987 Date Filed: 05/16/2017 Page: 13 of 23 As the district court explained: “This allegation parrots the language of Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act . . . .” See Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2)....

...was denied due to her poor credit rating. Conclusions of Law: The Trustee seeks avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers made by the Debtor to Crosdale pursuant to § 548(a)(1)(B), § 550 and Florida Statute § 726.105(a), § 726.105(1)(b) and § 726.106(1)....

...Bare legal title is economically valueless to this Debtor. Consequently, the transfer of it to Crosdale for nothing in return, does not constitute less then reasonably equivalent value. As such, the Trustee has failed to prove the third element. As a result, the § 548(a)(1)(B) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1) claims fail....

...rred from the seller to the Defendant and Debtor as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. [5] These include payments to the City of Coral Gables, The Lee County Tax Collector, and a "lot mowing program". [6] The Court notes that Florida Statute § 726.106(1) is identical in pertinent part to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B). Therefore, the analysis of § 548(a)(1)(B) shall apply equally to Florida Statute § 726.106(1)....

...§§ 726.105 (l)(a) and 726.108(1); (b) in Count II (Constructive Fraud) avoidance and recovery of certain fraudulent transfers under §§ 548(a)(1)(B) and 550; (c) in Count III (Constructive Fraud) avoidance and recovery of certain fraudulent transfers under §§ 544(b)(1) and 550, and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b), 726.106(1) and 726.108; and (d) in Count IV, recovery of the avoided transfers pursuant to § 550....

...Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 (11th Cir.2003). RELIEF REQUESTED The Trustee requests summary judgment in his favor on Counts II, III and IV of the Complaint. These are the counts alleging that the Transfers were constructively fraudulent under § 548(a)(1)(B) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1), brought pursuant to § 544(b), and requesting recovery of any avoided Transfers....

...TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Trustee requests summary judgment in his favor on Counts II, III and IV of the Complaint. These are the counts alleging that the Transfers were constructively fraudulent under § 548(a)(1)(B) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1), brought pursuant to § 544(b), and requesting recovery of any avoided Transfers....

...less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for such transfer or obligation; and (ii) (I) was insolvent on the date that such transfer was made or such obligation was incurred, or became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation. Section 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes provides: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer o...

...nificant assets on the Assignment, which were held by certain of the additional defendants as alter egos of BEAI, and BEAI had transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to ADC the day after the Assignment was executed, in contravention of section 726.106 of Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act....

...essional negligence (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547 (Counts III and IV), fraudulent conveyance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 (Count V), and fraudulent transfer pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1) (Count VI)....

...rose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (2002). 4 Bankruptcy Code....

...reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for the . asset transferred, §§ 726.105(l)(b), .106(1); and (3) transfers to an insider of the debtor for an antecedent debt when the debtor is insolvent and the insider has reasonable cause to know that, § 726.106(2)....

...726.105(l)(a) [actual fraudulent transfers], within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant; (2) Under s. 726.105(l)(b) or s. 726.106(1) [transfers made without reasonably equivalent value], within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) Under s. 726.106(2) [transfers to insiders for antecedent debt], within 1 year after’ the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred....

...Count I is an action to avoid and recover a fraudulent transfer pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and § 726.105( l )(b) of the Florida Statutes. Count II is an action to avoid and recover a fraudulent transfer pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and § 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes....

...judgment be declared nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), 523(a)(4), and 523(a)(6); the recovery and turnover of the fraudulently transferred accounts receivables pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 550 and § 726.105.(1) and § 726.106(1), Florida Statutes, and an accounting of the disposition of all assets transferred by Supreme and Mr....

...ia, forging records and transferring accounts receivables. Judgment shall enter for EAB on Count VI. Count VIII, IX and X seek avoidance and recovery of all assets transferred in contravention of Florida's fraudulent transfer statute, § 726.105(1), § 726.106(1)....

MVRE, SSM and Cypress violated § 726.106(1) or, in the alternative, § 726.106(2) of the Uniform Fraudulent

...avoid both the modification of the Blocking Right and the Teltronics ROFR and the transfer of the patents pursuant to the Assignment, and (2) recover, pursuant to Sections 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statutes 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1), the value of those transfers. A....

...the court so orders, the value of such property, from . . . the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made.” 11 U.S.C. § 550(a). The trustee alleges constructive fraudulent transfer under Florida Statutes 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1). Under Section 726.105(1)(b), a transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor if the debtor (1) made the transfer “[w]ithout receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation,” and...

...ly small in relation to the business or transaction” or (B) “[i]ntended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due.” Similarly, under Section 726.106(1), a transfer made by the debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor if (1) “the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation;” and (2) “the debtor was insolvent at that time or ....

...The Receiver is attempting to recover these excess payments for MRT LLC. The Amended Complaint contains four counts: (I) Fraudulent Transfer under Florida Statute Section 726.105(l)(a); (II) Fraudulent Transfer under Florida Statute Section 726.105(l)(b); (III) Fraudulent Transfer under Florida Statute Section 726.106(1); and (TV) Unjust Enrichment....

...Section 305 permits a court to suspend proceedings like the Court did in Rookery Bay. Id. Suspension of these proceedings would preserve the 547 preference period while permitting the parties to litigate in state court under Florida’s UFTA (See § 726.105 & § 726.106 Fla....

...s. . Regardless of whether SEPH and Alleged Debtors litigate over the transfers to SSI Des-tín, there will still be an issue of whether Alleged Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfers, or rendered insolvent as a result of the transfers. § 726.106 Fla....

...the named defendants, the Mizrahi Family Trust (Mizrahi Trust). Although Count II makes no reference to any other statutory provision, it also appears that the factual allegations in Paragraphs 21 and 24 of Count II state a claim based on Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...The claim in Count III is based on the same Code provision and is coupled with Fla.Stat. §§ 726.01, 726.105(1)(b) and 726.07. Again, it appears that the specific allegations in Paragraphs 30, 31, and 34 also state claims based on Fla.Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.106(1)....

...ty of the estate. At the conclusion of the presentation by the Trustee, this Court dismissed the claim based on turnover. Further, because there was no evidence of insolvency, this Court also dismissed the constructive fraud claim based on Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...suant to § 548(a)(2) and § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. In Count III, the Debtor seeks to avoid and recover the transfer as a constructively fraudulent transfer pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...small capital; or (iii) intended to incur, or believed that the debtor would incur, debts that would be beyond the debtor's ability to pay as such debts matured. Count III of the Complaint is based on § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and § 726.105 and § 726.106 of the Florida Statutes, and also seeks to avoid and recover the transfer of the rents as a constructively fraudulent transfer....

...cluding state laws to avoid fraudulent transfers, by a creditor holding an allowable unsecured claim. Florida's laws regarding the avoidance of constructively fraudulent transfers are set forth in Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1)....

...s of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond *834 his ability to pay as they became due. Florida Statute § 726.106(1) provides: 726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors....

...ation. These Florida statutes do not restrict the analysis of the transfers at issue to a period of only one year prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. In other material respects, however, Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1) are analogous "in form and substance" to § 548(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...13 As such, the Receiver alleges a right to repayment of the investors’ commingled principal investment money in an amount equivalent to Cloud’s false profits from one or more of the hedge funds. The Receiver also proceeds under Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b) and 726.106(1), for constructive fraud....

...is extinguished unless action is brought- *1339 (1) Under § 726.105(l)(a), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant ... (2) Under § 726.105(l)(b) or § 726.106(1), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred ......

...(2) intended to, believed, or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay them as they became due; or (3) was insolvent at the time of the transfer. See Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b)(1)-(2) and 726.106(1)....

...the fund managers, and/or the hedge funds incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed they would incur, debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. Finally, the Receiver asserts that the transfers were fraudulent under Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1) because neither Nadel, the fund managers, nor the hedge funds received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for those transfers to Cloud, and Nadel, the fund managers, and the hedge funds were insolvent at all relevant times....

...13 As such, the Receiver al *1355 leges a right to repayment of the investors’ commingled principal investment money in an amount equivalent to Morgan’s false profits from one or more of the hedge funds and Traders. The Receiver also proceeds under Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (l)(b) and 726.106(1), for constructive fraud....

...(2) intended to, believed, or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay them as they became due; or (3) was insolvent at the time of the transfer. See Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b)(1)-(2) and 726.106(1)....

...the fund managers, and/or the hedge funds incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed they would incur, debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. Finally, the Receiver asserts that the transfers were fraudulent under Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1) because neither Nadel, the fund managers, nor the hedge funds and Traders received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for those transfers to Morgan, and Nadel, the fund managers, and the hedge funds and Traders were insolvent at all relevant times....

...ty owned by Charles Covino. The next transfer the Trustee seeks to avoid is the alleged transfer to Todd Covino through the annuity. The Trustee contends that this transfer is avoidable under Florida Statute Sections 726.105(1)(a), 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1). Pursuant to Florida Statute § 726.106(1): A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receivin...

...). Also, the Debtors did not receive a reasonably equivalent value from Todd Covino in consideration for the annuity. Consequently, the transfer of the annuity in which Todd Covino is the payee constitutes a fraudulent transfer under Florida Statute Section 726.106(1)....

...determines that the Letter Agreement *553 is enforceable, the transfer of the right to receive the commission from the sale of the Jupiter Property is fraudulent and should be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1)....

..."Consequently, the Trustee may utilize the state fraudulent conveyance statutes, which have a four-year statute of limitations." Id. In this matter, the Trustee seeks to avoid the transfer under Florida's constructive fraud statutes, sections 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1) Fla Stat....

...f the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Fla Stat. § 726.106(1) titled "Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors" states in pertinent part: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incur...

...asonably equivalent value. The Complaint contains two counts for avoidance of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), and two counts under their state law counterparts, Florida Statutes § 726.105(1)(a) and (b), and § 726.106....

...The Trustee must also prove that FinFed (i) was insolvent at the time of the transfers; (ii) was engaged in a business for which there was little remaining capital; or (iii) intended to incur debts for which it could not pay at the time of the transfers. § 548(a)(1)(B), Fla.Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) and 726.106....

...intent to hinder, delay, or defraud,” Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a). Straub, 979 F. Supp. 2d at 1327–29. Second, the district court found that the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt when the insider should have known that the debtor was insolvent, Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2)....

...The Act provides that a preferential transfer to an insider is void if the “claim arose before the transfer was made, . . . the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.” Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2)....

...2d at 1330, and Straub does not contest these findings. Straub argues that National Maritime failed to establish that the transfer was made “without reasonably equivalent value,” but this argument misses the boat. Reasonably equivalent value is not an element of proof under section 726.106(2) or any associated defenses, see Fla. Stat. § 726.109. Although subsection (1) of section 726.106 provides that a transfer is fraudulent if it occurred “without receiving a reasonably equivalent value,” subsection (1) is unrelated to whether a transfer to an insider is fraudulent under subsection (2). Id. § 726.106. Straub also argues that the transfer is not voidable because he gave “new value” for the transfer, id....

...creditor to set off the amount of new value subsequently advanced against the recovery of a voidable preference”). The district court did not err. The record supports its decision that the transfer to Straub was a fraudulent transfer to an insider, Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2). And we need not address whether the transfer alternatively was fraudulent because Burrell Shipping “inten[ded] to hinder, delay, or defraud,” id....

...Discussion In his Motions to Dismiss, the Debtor acknowledges that the facts alleged in the complaints must be assumed as true [DE #18 in Adv. No 16-1045, p. 2, n. 1], Therefore the Court assumes that the, Bank Account Transfer and the Condominium Transfer are avoidable under § 726.105 and § 726.106 of the Florida Statutes, unless the claims are barred by the four year statute of limitations in Fla....

...The elements of constructive fraud are also established based on the undisputed facts. In addition to codifying the law regarding actual fraud, the UFTA creates a statutory category of constructive fraud to protect present creditors, recognizing certain transactions as fraudulent without regard to the debtor’s intent. § 726.106(1), Fla.Stat....

...*969 Nova alleged that Brown was involved in a conspiracy with others to transfer and conceal the transfer of funds from Yackity Yak to BigDot in order to render the judgment debtor unable to pay Nova's judgment against it, in violation of Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, section 726.106, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...§ 726.110 provides as follows: A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation . . . is extinguished unless action is brought — (1) Under § 726.105(1)(a), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. . . . (2) Under § 726.105(1)(b) or § 726.106(1), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or (3) Under § 726.106(2), within 1 year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred. The Trustee's theories against Brandt rely upon Fla.Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) & (b) and *599 726.106(1)....

...[3] Claims which rely upon these statutes could have been brought on May 7, 1992, the day that this bankruptcy case was commenced. Therefore, this adversary proceeding was filed timely with respect to such claims. However, in addition to the claims which rely upon Fla.Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a) & (b) and 726.106(1), the Trustee also relies upon Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2). [4] A 544(b) action which relies upon that statute could not have been brought as of the commencement of this bankruptcy case. Therefore, to the extent that the Trustee seeks to avoid the transfer in reliance upon Fla.Stat. § 726.106(2), the action was not commenced timely. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND DECREED that Brandt's motion is granted in part, in so far as the Trustee seeks recovery against Brandt under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Fla.Stat. § 726.106(2)....

...ining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1) states: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. [4] Fla.Stat. § 726.106(2) provides: A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, if the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider...

...eeding in the Berkman Case seeking to avoid the transfers from Berkman to the Trustee, and the subsequent transfers from the Trustee to the Synectic Funds and Aleo, as fraudulent transfers under FUFTA, 30 specifically Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (l)(a), 726.106(1)0»), and 726.106(1) (the “Berkman Adversary”)....

...The default provisions of Section 4.2 are not implicated and there is no basis on which the Court can now find that the Global Settlement Agreement is void. Because the absence of reasonably equivalent value is a required element of Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (l)(b) and 726.106(1), the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of proof on their constructively fraudulent transfer claims....

...163, 192-93 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.2014). . Turner v. Fitzsimmons, 673 So.2d 532, 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Cullen v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 63 Fla. 122 , 58 So. 182 , 184 (1912). . Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(a). . Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(b). . Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1)....

...and conveyance of property that could have been applied to payment of the debt due (transfer of the sale proceeds to the insider controlling all of the transactions, Straub). See In re PSI Indus., Inc., 306 B.R. at 387 . B. Count V: Florida Statute Section 726.106 Count V of the Supplemental Complaint alleges a violation of Florida Statute Section 726.106. Under Section 726.106(2), “[a] transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider h...

...was secured by a valid lien.” Fla. Stat. § 726.109 (6)(a). Under Florida Statute Section 726.104(1), “[v]alue is given for a transfer ... if, in exchange for the transfer ... an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied.... ” The purpose behind section 726.106(2) is that the insider should not be permitted to “accept payment for an antecedent debt when the debtor is insolvent, unless other creditors are paid first.” Mansolillo v....

...fore National Maritime’s claim stated in Count V must fail. Straub’s arguments fail to persuade. The statutory language relied upon in Count V states a “transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent” if certain conditions are satisfied. Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (2) (emphasis added)....

...See Friedman, 863 So.2d at 192 (“A ‘claim’ under the [UFTA] may be maintained even though ‘contingent’ and not yet reduced to judgment.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). National Maritime’s claim against Burrell arose well before the transfer by Burrell to Straub. Under Florida Statute section 726.106(2), the transfer was made to an insider, Straub, for an antecedent debt evidenced by the promissory notes....

...26.109(6)(a). Value was not provided by Straub to Burrell as no property was transferred, and an antecedent debt of Straub’s was not secured or satisfied. Consequently, the Court finds the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance under Florida Statute section 726.106(2)....

...Hutton (In re Harwell), 628 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir.2010). In Counts III and IV of the Complaint, the Trustee brought claims for constructively fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 (a)(1)(B), Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(b), and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1)....

...09-AP-00715, 2011 WL 1783805 , at *4 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. Apr. 26, 2011). The similarities between these statutes allows a reviewing court to analyze these claims together. See In re Venice-Oxford Assocs., 236 B.R. 820, 834 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1999) (analyzing transfers under Fla. Stat. § 726.105 and § 726.106 contemporaneously with 11 USC *840 § 548 ); see also Freeman v....

...id by the perspective participants under the Purchase/Leaseback Agreements, and 5% of the principal amount of the Short Term Notes. Similar to Count I, in Count II, the Debtor seeks to avoid constructively fraudulent transfers pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1), in which the Debtor seeks the commissions paid to the Brokers....

...48(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code; in Count III, to avoid the same payment as a fraudulent transfer under § 548(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code; and, in Count IV, to avoid the same payment as a fraudulent transfer under § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and § 726.106(1) and (2) of the Florida Statutes....

...This leaves for consideration the claims set forth in Counts II, III and IV of the Complaint, all of which are based on the contention of the Debtor that the payment to Winick was a fraudulent transfer pursuant to § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code and *792 Fla.Stat. § 726.106....

...Count IV involves the same factual allegations, but is based upon § 726.103 of the Florida Statutes. Winick argues that the cause of action contained in Count IV is barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations is contained in § 726.110, and provides that an action under § 726.106 must be brought within "four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred." Although the obligation of the Debtor to Winick was incurred well outside the four year period, the transfer, i.e....

...The Summary Judgment Motions relate to Counts IV and VII of the Complaints, which seek to recover the Subject Transfers only, and to Regions' Ninth and Twelfth Affirmative Defenses. In Count IV of the Complaints, Plaintiff seeks to avoid the Subject Transfers as constructively fraudulent transfers under Sections 726.106(1) and 726.108, Florida Statutes, 24 by operation of 11 U.S.C....

...r ignored evidence in the record to withstand a motion for directed verdict or by coming forward with sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict. 41 III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AS TO COUNT IV-CONSTRUCTIVELY FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS UNDER § 726.106(1) Under § 726.106(1), a transfer is fraudulent (1) as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made, (2) if the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, and (3) if the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. The Court will address each of the elements of § 726.106(1) in turn....

...Plaintiff counters that there is a genuine possibility that he could supply evidence satisfying those elements. II. THE FLORIDA FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT — CHAPTER 726 Florida's enactment of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is found in § 726.105 and § 726.106 of the Florida Statutes....

...reasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (2) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. FLA.STAT. § 726.105 (2001). Section 726.106 provides, in relevant part: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the *643 transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. FLA.STAT. § 726.106 (2001)....

...Transfers Avoidance of the Transfers as constructive fraud under § 726.105(1)(b) Count II Overdraft Loan Repayment Transfers Count V Deposit Transfers Count VIII Other Loan Repayment Transfers Avoidance of the Transfers as constructive fraud under § 726.106(1) Count III Overdraft Loan Repayment Transfers Count VI Deposit Transfers Count IX Other Loan Repayment Transfers Avoidance of the Transfers as actual fraud under 11 U.S.C....

...50 Here, Plaintiff alleges that in the summer of 2010, Regions returned to Synovus numerous checks drawn on the Mongelluzzi Accounts that had been deposited to accounts at Synovus, resulting in $15 million in overdrafts in the Synovus accounts. 51 C. Plaintiff's Constructive Fraudulent Transfer Claims under § 726.105(1)(b), § 726.106(1 ), and 11 U.S.C....

...ing assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (2) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed *492 that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay as they became due. Under § 726.106(1), a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was inso...

...The Court, therefore, must conclude that such a transfer does not constitute a fraudulent transfer. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This is an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid and recover a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1) & 726.106(1)....

...said Real Property within two years of the filing for bankruptcy while she was insolvent at the time of the transfer. A more in depth discussion is required as to the remaining two parts. The pertinent factors for constructive fraud under Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1), the statute relied upon in Count IV of the adversary complaint, are identical to those in 11 U.S.C....

...See Moodie, 362 B.R. at 562. If no value was lost in the transfer between the Debtor and the Defendant, it is inherently the case that the Debtor did not receive less than equivalent value. Id. As a result, the section 548(a)(1)(B), Florida Statute section 726.106(1) and Florida Statute section 726.105(1)(b) claims fail as to the less than reasonably equivalent value element....

...The Trustee, in her four-count Complaint, seeks to avoid a transfer alleged to be fraudulent pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a) in Count I; 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. § 726.105(b) in Count II; 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1) in Count III; and 11 U.S.C....

...(k) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor. Fl.Stat.Ch. 726.105(2). A transfer which is not accompanied by adequate consideration may also be avoided by a present creditor pursuant to § 726.106, Florida Statutes, regardless of intent: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. Fl.Stat.Ch. 726.106(1)....

Transfer Act (UFTA), codified in chapter 726. Section 726.106, entitled Transfers Fraudulent as to Present

...726.105(1)(b) because Defendants made certain transfers of ZKE property and proceeds from the sale of ZKE's property "without a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or the obligation." Compl. ¶ 183. ZKE also claims that Defendants are liable under Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1) because Defendants transferred ZKE's property and the proceeds of ZKE's property, or incurred obligations at a time when ZKE already had claims against defendants." Compl. ¶ 184. Both of these claims require that plaintiff show that defendants made transfers "without a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation." Fla. Stats. §§ 726.105(1)(b), 726.106(1)....

...ZKE again points to the unreported and underreported transactions discussed above at Section III.B. ZKE has sufficiently demonstrated that issues of material fact exist as to this claim; summary judgment is denied. Finally, ZKE alleges that Defendants are liable under Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2) for transferring ZKE's property and the proceeds of ZKE's property "at a time when ZKE already had claims against [the Defendants]" and Defendants made these transfers "to insiders for an antecedent debt at a time when [Airspares] was i...

...Count IX (FUFTA Claims Against all Defendants): a. The claim under Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(a) remains as to all defendants. Summary judgment is DENIED. b. The claim under Fla. Stat. § 726.105(1)(b) remains as to all defendants. Summary judgment is DENIED. c. The claim under Fla. Stat. § 726.106(1) remains as to all defendants. Summary judgment is DENIED. d. The claim under Fla. Stat. § 726.106(2) is dismissed as to all defendants....

...erencing of the two statutory provisions suggests that they are to be read in tandem. In re Levine, 134 F.3d 1046, 1053 (11th Cir.1998). Cadle asserts that Debtors' annual payments to the Jackson policy constitute a fraudulent conversion pursuant to 726.106(1). Florida Statute § 726.106(1) provides: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. FLA. STAT. 726.106 (1988) (emphasis added)....

...The Complaint specifically states that the FUFTA claims are brought pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (1)(a) and (b). Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (1)(a) concerns actual fraud while Fla Stat. § 726.105(1)(b) concerns constructive fraud. Constructive fraud is also addressed in Fla. Stat. § 726.106 ....

...g assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Section 726.106(1) provides: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation wi...

...(2002). A transfer is fraudulent if made “without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.” § 726.106(1), Fla....

...in Okeechobee County. While the malpractice action was pending, Appellees filed a second complaint against Appellants and their new accounting firm alleging a violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“the Fraudulent Transfer Act”). See § 726.106(1), Fla....

...We reject that argument because proof of damages in the underlying “claim” is not an element of a Fraudulent Transfer Act claim. See Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189, 192 (Fla.2003). The Fraudulent Transfer Act only requires that a creditor’s claim arise before the alleged transfer. § 726.106(1), Fla....

...Though Sylvia Berman cites In re Global Technovations Inc., 694 F.3d 705 (6th Cir.2012), for the notion that the IRS could only have a fraudulent-transfer claim if it became a creditor “before the transfer was made and the obligation was incurred,” that case discussed § 726.106, Fla....

...On February 10, 2010, the *567 Chapter 7 trustee filed this adversary proceeding to recover the August 27, 2007, payment to the IRS as a fraudulent conveyance under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a)(1)(A), (B), or § 544(b) and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a), (b) or § 726.106(1)....

...suant to § 548(a)(2) and § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. In Count III, the Debtor seeks to avoid and recover the transfer as a constructively fraudulent transfer pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(1)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...capital; or *480 (iii) intended to incur, or believed that the debtor would incur, debts that would be beyond the debtor's ability to pay as such debts matured. Count III of the Complaint is based on § 544 of the Bankruptcy Code and § 726.105 and § 726.106 of the Florida Statutes, and also seeks to avoid and recover the transfer of the rents as a constructively fraudulent transfer....

...cluding state laws to avoid fraudulent transfers, by a creditor holding an allowable unsecured claim. Florida's laws regarding the avoidance of constructively fraudulent transfers are set forth in Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1)....

...assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due. Florida Statute § 726.106(1) provides: 726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors....

...ation. These Florida statutes do not restrict the analysis of the transfers at issue to a period of only one year prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. In other material respects, however, Florida Statute § 726.105(1)(b) and Florida Statute § 726.106(1) are analogous "in form and substance" to § 548(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code....

...Hyon, collectively referred to as the Defendants, and sought to recover and set aside a transfer of certain income-producing commercial property owned by the Debtor which, according to the Trustee was voidable as a fraudulent transfer, pursuant to Section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Section 726.106, et....

...r, delay or defraud Plaintiff in violation of Fla. Stat. ch. 726.105(1)(a); 2) in a transaction that rendered EAH insolvent, it fraudulently transferred Holtham $134,214.62 without receiving reasonably equivalent value in violation of Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(1); or 3) Holtham, an insider, fraudulently accepted a $134,214.62 transfer to satisfy an antecedent debt from the insolvent EAH when Holtham had reasonable cause to believe EAH was insolvent at the time in violation of Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(2)....

...because EAH was undisputedly unaware of the unpaid taxes. Badges of fraud are merely factors which aid the Court in determining whether intent existed. Their limited presence in this situation is not determinative of actual intent. 2. Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(1) A transfer from a debtor to a creditor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the debtor made the transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor was insolvent at the time. Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(1)....

...re satisfied. Its assets equaled its debts, and EAH insured that all its debts were paid as they became due by transferring the remainder of its assets to Holtham. By the very nature of Holtham's undertaking, he insured EAH's solvency. 3. Fla. Stat. 726.106(2) A transfer from a debtor to a creditor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if: 1) the transfer was made to an insider; 2) for antecedent debt; and 3) the debtor was insolvent or the insider had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent. Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(2). Holtham was an undisputed insider and the transfer was made at least partially for an antecedent debt. The Court's discussion of Fla. Stat. ch. 726.106(2), however, establishes that EAH was not insolvent at the time of the transfer....

...EAH's known liabilities. Plaintiff concedes that Holtham had no knowledge of the unpaid taxes, the existence of which Plaintiff alleges rendered EAH insolvent. This argument is logically inconsistent and cannot prevail. For these reasons, Fla. Stat. 726.106(2) is inapplicable....

...§ 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(a) — Overdraft Loan Repayment Transfers; (2) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(b) and 726.108 — Overdraft Loan Repayment Transfers; (3) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108 — Overdraft Loan Repayment Transfers; (4) Actual Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(a) and 726.108 — Deposit Transfers; (5) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108 — Deposit Transfers; (6) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b), Florida Statute §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108 — Deposit Transfers; (7) Actual Fraud, 11 U.S.C....

...§ 544 and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(a) and 726.108 — Other Loan Repayment Transfers; (8) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(b) and 726.108— Other Loan Repayment Transfers; (9) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) *276 and Florida Statute §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108 — Other Loan Repayment Transfers; (10) Actual Fraud, 11 U.S.C....

...§ 544 and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(a) and 726.108 — Able Body Labor Asset Sale Transfers; (11) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statute §§ 726.105(l)(b) and 726.108 — Able Body Labor Asset Sale Transfers; and (12) Constructive Fraud, 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Florida Statute §§ 726.106(1) and 726.108 — Able Body Labor Asset Sale Transfers....

...of the proceedings, the Court denies Syno-vus’s Motion as to these Counts. 2. Counts II, III, V, VI, VIII and IX In Counts II, III, V, VI, VIII, and IX, the Trustee asserts claims for constructive *283 fraud pursuant to Sections 726.105(l)(b) and 726.106(1), 6 Florida Statutes....

...Synovus’s argument for dismissal of these Counts is brief. According to Synovus, [t]he first element necessary for both types of constructive fraud claims is a failure to exchange reasonably equivalent value for a transfer. Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (l)(b)[,] 726.106(1)....

...aims in Counts X, XI and XII. The Trustee brings Count X for actual fraud pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(a), Count XI for constructive fraud pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(b), and Count XII for constructive fraud pursuant to Fla. Stat. 726.106(1)....

...ecluded summary judgment based on the mere conduit test under the circumstances of the case). However, Synovus appears to concede in its reply that "the defense[s] of mere conduit and good faith are not in play at this time.” (Doc. # 29 at 1-2). . Section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes, provides: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurre...

...Crawford (Defendant). The Trustee's claim for relief is set forth in his three Count Complaint. In Count I the Trustee seeks to avoid the transaction as a fraudulent transfer based on Fla.Stat. § 726.105; the Claim in Count II is based on Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1) and the claim in Count III is based on § 550 of the Bankruptcy Code....

...efendant's interest in the corpus of the trust, this leaves for consideration whether or not the Trustee established with the requisite degree of proof all the requisite elements of a viable fraudulent transfer claim under Fla.Stat. §§ 726.105 and 726.106(1)....

...he might die for the specific purpose to defeat the claim of the Trustee, a point not conceded. It is evident based on this record that the transaction is still voidable as a fraudulent transfer and could be set aside by the Trustee. Florida Statute 726.106(1) provides: "a transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without r...

...Based on the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that this record supports the Trustee's claim and supports the findings that the Trustee did establish all operating elements of a voidable fraudulent transfer both pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 726.105 and Fla.Stat. § 726.106(1)....

...customers. Rocco worked as the chief executive officer of Effective and continued in the same capacity at Etech Texas. Alleging legal theories turning on the claim of a fraudulent transfer of assets under sections 726.105(l)(a), 726.105(l)(b)2, and 726.106(1), Florida Statutes (2010), the im-pleader complaint sought various remedies including the voiding of the transfer of assets to Etech Texas or the sale of Etech Texas’s assets....

...id any conveyance or transfer void or voidable by law.” §§ 727.110(l)(c), 727.109(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (2010). The assignee is authorized to bring a Chapter 726 action because the assignee is a Chapter 726 “creditor.” *1052 Sections 726.105 and 726.106, Florida Statutes (2010), define the circumstances where a transfer by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor....

...y equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor: [[Image here]] 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Section 726.106 states: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation wit...

...The trial court found that the Levins' placement of the GGL mortgage on the Pompano property was "evasive of creditors and, consequently, fraudulent" under Chapter 726. Implicit in this finding of fraud is that Georgetown did not receive "reasonably equivalent value." § 726.106(1)....

...by the Fraudulent Transfer Act." The trial court was apparently only considering whether this was a fraudulent transfer under section 726.105(1)(a) which includes the element of "intent to hinder, *136 delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor." Section 726.106(1), on which Ethan Allen was also proceeding, however, does not require intent....

...That transaction amounted to a transfer of over $500,000 of Georgetown's equity in the Pompano property. In addition, Georgetown was insolvent at the time it gave the mortgage, as it had not been paying its debts as they became due. This transfer, accordingly, satisfied all of the elements of section 726.106(1), which does not require intent. United States v. Ressler, 433 F.Supp. 459 (S.D.Fla.1977), affirmed, 576 F.2d 650. Under section 726.106(1), this was a fraudulent transfer as a matter of law....

...sfied that she had absolutely no knowledge of the legal exposure she was accepting when she signed the various papers." The court concluded, however, that she could not escape the consequences of her involvement. Mrs. Levin's argument overlooks that section 726.106(1) does not require intent. Georgetown's transfers of both properties satisfy all of the elements of section 726.106(1), and accordingly a finding of intent was unnecessary as to Mrs....

...’s Sandwich Shops, the evidence is insufficient to find that Sobik’s Sandwich Shops gave “reasonably equivalent value” for the transfer. REVERSED and REMANDED. PETERSON, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . Para left the company in the mid-1980s. . Section 726.106(1) provides as foEows: 726.106 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.— (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transf...

...etermines that the Letter Agree *553 ment is enforceable, the transfer of the right to receive the commission from the sale of the Jupiter Property is fraudulent and should be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Fla. Stat. § 726.105 (l)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...“Consequently, the Trustee may utilize the state fraudulent conveyance statutes, which have a four-year statute of limitations.” Id. In this matter, the Trustee seeks to avoid the transfer under Florida’s constructive fraud statutes, sections 726.105(l)(b) and 726.106(1) Fla Stat....

...f the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Fla Stat. § 726.106(1) titled “Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors” states in pertinent part: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was i...

...CLYDE MASH and ROYAL’S assets and funds outside the reach- of Plaintiff with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud collection by Plaintiff of its then existing, lawful and unsatisfied default Judgment against E. CLYDE MASH, in violation of Florida Statutes, Chapter 726 including, but not limited to, § 726.105 and § 726.106....

...ent transfer claim in the supplementary proceeding below. See, e.g., Mejia, 985 So.2d at 1112-13 (applying § 726.105 in evaluating a fraudulent transfer claim); Mansolillo v. Parties By Lynn, Inc., 753 So.2d 637, 639-40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (applying § 726.106)....

...Mead’s conveyance to the Hysells of Parcels 1, 2, and 3 were fraudulent conveyances under Florida law. The Hysells request the Court to reconsider or clarify this decision. Specifically, the Hysells direct the Court’s attention to Fla.Stat.Ann. § 726.106(2), and *628 submit that the Court reconsider or explain whether the Court made a finding as to Steven Mead’s insolvency or the Hysells’ knowledge of such insolvency....

...§ 548 (a)(1)(B) and § 550; (3) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statutes § 726.105(()(b) and § 726.108; and (4) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statutes § 726.106 and § 726.108....

SALTER, J. The Rodriguezes appeal the involuntary-dismissal of their complaint against Dennis Nieves and Dennis’ company, Trust Management Group, LLC, for fraudulent transfer under section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ts for the forgiveness of indebtedness (approximately $800,000), proven to be substantially less than the evidence of value of those assets (between $1,700,000 and $3,500,000) at that time. On that record, the trial court found all three elements of section 726.106(1) were satisfied....

Code and Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105(1)(a), (b) and § 726.106(1). Count I of the Complaint asserts a preference

...14 In Count I of the Complaint, the Trustee alleges a constructive fraudulent transfer claim under § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code and seeks avoidance of the transfer under § 550 of the Code. 15 In Counts III and Y *601 of the Complaint, the Trustee- alleges- a fraudulent transfer claim under § 726.105(l)(b) and § 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes, respectively, and seeks to avoid the transfer under §§ 544 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code....

...Insolvency Insolvency for fraudulent transfer purposes is a question of fact which requires “fair valuation.” 20 The Trustee’s *602 Complaint states a plausible claim against Equity IX for receiving a fraudulent transfer under § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, and under §§ 726.105(l)(b), 726.106(1), Florida Statutes....

...In Count II of the Complaint, the Trustee alleges a constructive fraudulent transfer claim under § 548(a)(1)(B) of the Code, and seeks avoidance of the transfer under § 550 of the Code. 34 In Counts IV and VI- of the Complaint, the Trustee alleges a-fraudulent transfer claim under § 726.105(l)(b) and § 726.106(1), Fla....

...bly small in relation to the business or transaction; or 2. Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due. Count V of the Complaint is based on § 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes....

...s of shares of Skyway stock to be issued improperly." (¶¶ 25, 30, 31), The Complaint contains three Counts: (1) an action to recover fraudulent transfers under § 726.105 of the Florida Statutes; (2) an action to recover fraudulent transfers under § 726.106 of the Florida Statutes; and (3) an action for unjust enrichment....

...$162,063.21, which represents the current balance of Major’s’ outstanding tax obligations and interest for the years of 2002 through 2006. (Doc. No. 38). D. The Transfer of the Sarasota Property is Avoidable as a Fraudulent Transfer Pursuant to Section 726.106 of the Florida Statutes, “[a] transfer made ......

...er was- made ... if the debtor made the transfer ... without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer ... and the debtor was insolvent at the time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer.” Fla. Stat., § 726.106(1) (2016)....

...Vurchio (In re Vurchio), 107 B.R. 363, 365 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1989). As for the reasonably. equivalent value element, proof that a transfer was gratuitous, i.e. made for no consideration, is sufficient to show that the debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value under Section 726.106(1)....

...On this point, transfers of money or property to a family member in exchange for “love and affection” do not constitute reasonably equivalent value. Id. Where a creditor succeeds in showing that a transfer satisfies the elements for being a fraudulent transfer under Section 726.106(1), creditors may obtain “[ajvoidance of the transfer ......

...asonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer of the Sarasota Property, as Major’s wife did not provide any consideration for the transfer and so called “marital consideration” is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact under Section 726.106(1)....

...of the Court, and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the findings of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the transfer of the Sarasota Property to Major and his wife and tenants by the entirety is AVOIDED pursuant to Sections 726.106(1) & 726.108(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes....

...g the instant Adversary Proceeding. In the Complaint, the Trustee asserts that the transfer of the Manalapan Property to the Defendant constitutes a fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548 (a)(1)(B) and Florida Statutes § 726.105(l)(b) and § 726.106(1)....

...sfer. In his Motion, the Defendant makes the argument that the Debtor “had the ability to pay his debts as they came due,” and that the “Trustee will not be able to establish ‘balance sheet’ insolvency” as required under Florida Statutes § 726.106(1)....

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Holl v. Talcott, 191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966); § 726.106(1), Fla....

...We find no error in the trial court taking judicial notice of financial affidavits that John had filed in his divorce action. The affidavits were relevant on the issue of whether John was insolvent at the time Executive Aviation transferred the airplane to Jeff. See § 726.106(1), Fla....

...The statutory framework is this: the transfer of the airplane was fraudulent as to Vero-nique’s 1 child support claim if John “made the transfer ... without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer” and John “was insolvent ... or became insolvent as a result of the transfer.” § 726.106(1), Fla....

...bts were greater than his assets. See § 726.103(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Also, because John was “generally not paying his debts as they became due,” he was presumed to be insolvent. § 726.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2006). As to the second aspect of the section 726.106(1) equation, Jeff gave no money or property in exchange for the $120,000 airplane....

...Mansolillo has appealed. Ms. Mansolillo argues in substance that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish that there was a fraudulent transfer. We disagree. The trial court found that there was a fraudulent transfer of the trucks under subsection 726.106(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: (2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolven...

...Mansolillo was an “insider,” see id. § 726.102(7)(b)l.,2.,6.; and that Ms. Man-solillo knew that Stanley Roofing was insolvent. Ms. Mansolillo contends, however, that there is no evidence the transfer of the trucks was made to her “for an antecedent debt.” Id. § 726.106(2)....

...The evidence is consistent with the idea that she initially took the trucks as her own, but later decided to provide further financial assistance for the roofing company. Assuming, however, for purposes of discussion that this particular transaction is not properly viewed as coming within subsection 726.106(2), the evidence also establishes the existence of a fraudulent transfer under subsection 726.106(1), which provides: (1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the *640 transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred t...

...So the court-now with a different presiding judge-looked at the same record it already had. After hearing argument, the court entered an order again denying RREF's request. This time, the court found that the appellees proved McAlpin's stock transfer was not fraudulent. Once again, RREF appeals. II. ANALYSIS Under section 726.106, a debtor's transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor if (a) the *790 creditor's claim arose before the transfer, (b) the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer or became insolvent because of the transfer, and (c) the debtor made the transfer without receiving reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer. § 726.106(1), Fla....

...see also In re Todd , 391 B.R. 504 , 509 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2008) ("If no value was lost in the transfer between the Debtor and the Defendant, it is inherently the case that the Debtor did not receive less than equivalent value. As a result, the ... section 726.106(1) [and other] claims fail as to the less than reasonably equivalent value element."); In re Moodie , 362 B.R. 554 , 562 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007) (finding transfer of "economically valueless" title does not meet the reasonably equivalent value standard in § 726.106(1) ); In re Gillman , 120 B.R....

...eal. Appellants argue that, because they were judgment creditors of South-lake, and these judgment liens had to be satisfied before Southlake could be sold to Mied, they were as a matter of law not fraudulent transfers. What this argument ignores is section 726.106(2) of our Fraudulent Transfer Act, which provides: A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. The payments to Carter and Co-wart satisfy all of the requirements of section 726.106(2)....

...rs. Their argument that this statute does not apply to insiders who have judgments against the insolvent transferor is without merit. The statute does not distinguish between creditors who hold judgments and those who do not. If insiders could avoid section 726.106 by obtaining consent judgments, as these appellants did, it would take all of the teeth out of it....

...S.C. § 550 (a). The Court will enter judgment in favor of the Trustee on Count I in the amount of $1,602,956.99 against Mr. Luboff and Mrs. Luboff, jointly and severally. 2. Constructive Fraudulent Transfers Claims Under Sections 726.105(l)(b), and Section 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes (Counts II and III) Under 11 U.S.C. § 544 and sections 726.105(l)(b) and 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes, transfers that were made for less than reasonably equivalent value while a debtor is insolvent, or caused the insolvency, are likewise avoidable. Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (l)(b) and 726.106(1)....

...s outside of the Debtor’s ordinary course of business for the benefit of insiders, i.e., the Kanes. In Count III of the Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to avoid the Transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b)(1), Fla. Stat. 726.108(1)(a), Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1), and Fla....

...1 U.S.C. § 548 (a)(1)(B); (II) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statutes § 726.105(l)(b); ' (III) avoidance and recovery of fraudulent transfer pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 and Florida Statutes § 726.106(1); *688 (IV) avoidance and recovery of' fraudulent transfer pursuant tó 11 U.S.C....

...nduct, courts simply do not pierce the corporate veil under Florida law.”). Additionally, the judgment appealed from premised the imposition of liability upon Moran on a finding that the Corporation was operated by Moran in a manner which violated Section 726.106(2), Florida Statutes (1993) which provides: A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent. Under Section 726.110(3), Florida Statutes(“Extinguishment of cause of action”) a claim under Section 726.106(2) is extinguished unless brought within one year after the transfer was made. The record shows that this action was brought long after the expiration of that time period, and the claim against Moran under Section 726.106(2) is extinguished....

...as set forth in Paragraph 4(B) of the Departure Agreement. . . . . . 8. The Departure Agreement (or at least that portion of the Departure Agreement that purports to release causes of action against the Defendant) is avoidable under §§ 726.105 and 726.106 and 11 U.S.C....

...Instead, the Defendant contends that the Plaintiff's Motion should be denied because the proposed Amendment is futile. (Doc. 83). Specifically, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff "cannot satisfy any of the basic elements necessary to bring a claim under § 726.106(1)." (Doc....

...frivolous on its face." United States v. Hollar, 885 F.Supp. 822, 826 (M.D.N.C.1995). The Plaintiff's proposed Amendment in this case is not futile. The proposed Amendment is brought pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and §§ 726.105 and 726.106 of the Florida Statutes, and must be read in conjunction with the General Allegations and other Counts set forth in the original Complaint....

...12 As such, the Receiver alleges a right to repayment of the investors’ commingled principal investment money in an amount equivalent to Dancing $’s false profits from one or more of the hedge funds. The Receiver also proceeds under Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b) and 726.106(1), for constructive fraud....

...(2) intended to, believed, or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur debts beyond his or her ability to pay them as they became due; or (3) was insolvent at the time of the transfer. See Fla. Stat. §§ 726.105 (1)(b)(1)-(2) and 726.106(1)....

...the fund managers, and/or the hedge funds incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed they would incur, debts beyond their ability to pay as they became due. Finally, the Receiver asserts that the transfers were fraudulent under Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1) because neither Nadel, the fund managers, nor the hedge funds received a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for those transfers to Dancing $, and Nadel, the fund managers, and the hedge funds were insolvent at all relevant times....

...in violation of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. That count alleged that Flooring Depot, the insolvent judgment debtor, transferred assets to the Prizzis or for their benefit, either directly or indirectly, without receiving reasonably equivalent value, in violation of section 726.106(1) or 726.109(2), Florida Statutes....

...“This is in stark contrast to a common law fraud claim where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant made a material false statement or omission directly to the plaintiff.” Id. 4  A fraudulent transfer claim under section 726.106(1) focuses not on false representations made to a plaintiff but on the unfairness of the transfer to a judgment creditor: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose...

...made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. § 726.106(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). “A debtor who is generally not paying his or her debts as they become due is presumed to be insolvent.” § 726.103(2), Fla. Stat. (2016). Section 726.106(1) “does not require intent.” Levin v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 823 So. 2d 132, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Thus, section 726.106, Florida Statutes (2016), is often referred to as a “constructive fraud” statute....

...Depot fraudulently transferred funds to the Prizzis while it was insolvent and without receiving reasonably equivalent value. The fraudulent transfer claim was not within the issues framed by the pleadings in the underlying suit. The factors necessary to establish a section 726.106 fraudulent transfer claim are different from those essential to proving common law fraud or piercing the corporate veil. We acknowledge there were facts common to both actions....

...misrepresentation to establish fraud, or improper conduct in the sense that “the corporation was actually organized or used to mislead creditors or to perpetrate a fraud upon them,” necessary to pierce the corporate veil. By contrast, a fraudulent transfer claim under section 726.106 operates under a constructive fraud theory....

...n were identical to the parties of the current proceeding; and (5) the issue was actually litigated.” Marquardt v. State, 156 So. 3d 464, 481 (Fla. 2015). Here, collateral estoppel does not bar the plaintiffs’ fraudulent transfer claim under section 726.106(1). Several elements of collateral estoppel are not present here. Whether the transfers from Flooring Depot to the Prizzis constituted fraudulent transfers under section 726.106(1)—that is, whether the transfers were made while Flooring Depot was insolvent and without reasonably equivalent value—is not the identical issue presented in the underlying proceeding....

...Rather, the issues in the underlying proceeding concerned whether Flooring Depot and Mr. Prizzi committed actual fraud and whether to pierce the corporate veil. Accordingly, collateral estoppel did not bar the plaintiffs’ fraudulent transfer claim under section 726.106(1). The Supplemental Complaint Stated a Cause of Action Against Alexis Finally, we hold that the supplemental complaint stated a cause of action for a fraudulent transfer against Alexis. See Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. Astro Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 137 So. 3d 613, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding that a complaint tracking the language of sections 726.105 and 726.106 sufficiently stated a claim of fraudulent transfer); In re 45 John Lofts, LLC, 599 B.R....

...34, East Section 34. The Debtor 5th Deed was recorded on February 7, 1995. The Debt- or 4th Deed and the Debtor 5th Deed were also found to be void by entry of a Final Judgment in Adv. Proc. No. 98-152 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 ....

...ility of Writing. Typing or Printing unsatisfactory in this document when received.” (Ex. 14 of PL). The First Assignment was also avoided in Adv. Proc. No. 98-152 by the entry of the Final Judgment, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 , as affirmed by the District Court....

...partial summary judgment on one of Appellee Alliance RE Holdings, LLC’s two claims brought under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, Chapter 726, Florida Statutes (2023). The trial court granted summary judgment on Alliance’s claim under § 726.106(2) but denied summary judgment on Alliance’s claim under § 726.105(1) “because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute regarding the elements of the claim.” The court then entered an order titled “Final Judgment.�...

...that Building’s assets exceeded its liabilities by $326,749.00, because it was not paying its debts, specifically the Gruppo debt, as they became due. The court held that Building could not, as a matter of law, rebut the insolvency presumption of section 726.106, Florida Statutes, by presenting evidence of balance sheet solvency....

...arting with an asset or an interest in an asset....” Here, no matter how broadly the term is defined, no transfer was made to Appellants, individually. Appellee seeks to impose liability on the ground that the individuals were “insiders” under section 726.106(2)....

...As it will impact the case on remand, in the event the trial court subsequently determines that Appellee is enti- *814 tied to pierce the corporate veil to reach Appellants, we also consider whether the trial court erred in entering summary judgment under sections 726.106 and 726.103, Florida Statutes....

...insolvency presumption under 726.103(2) and that the presumption was never rebutted by proof of receipt of reasonably equivalent value for the transfer to BMI Tile. In doing so, it appears that the trial court confused the two factors required under section 726.106(1) to establish a fraudulent transfer with the types of evidence that can be used to rebut the presumption of insolvency under section 726.103(2). Section 726.106(1) provides that a transfer is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made “if the debtor made the transfer ......

...In the complaint, the trustee contends that all of these payments are avoidable either as having been made with the actual intent to defraud or having been made in exchange for less than reasonably equivalent value under the applicable provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 548 or Florida Statutes, §§ 726.105 and 726.106....

...1 In a similar fashion, § 726.108, Florida Statutes, provides that a creditor (and in this case the trustee standing in the shoes of an unsecured creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b)(1)) may avoid a transfer that is fraudulent under either § 726.105 or § 726.106, Florida Statutes....

the transfer or obligation.” Id. at § 726.106(1). . Kardash raises two challenges to the Tax

...d Florida Statutes § 607.017(4). Pursuant to § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee may avoid this transfer, and the Trustee therefore prevails on Count III of the Complaint. Count IV of the Trustee’s complaint is based on Florida Statutes § 726.106, which defines fraudulent transfers to a creditor as follows: 726.106....

...s made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time, and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debt- or was insolvent. [[Image here]] While there is no doubt that some of the elements of Florida Statutes § 726.106 are met, this record is replete with evidence that Tudor was kept in the dark and not informed about the Debtor’s financial status....

Excess Corp., 501 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA1987); § 726.-106(2), Fla.Stat. (1991). Affirmed.

...is limited to the claim in Count I, which is a claim by the Debtor that the pledge by the Debtor of its assets to secure the indebtedness of Douglas McIntyre (McIntyre) was fraudulent, thus avoidable, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1)....

...It was agreed by the parties that the claims relating to subordination of the Bank’s claim shall be deferred pending the resolution of the fraudulent transfer claims asserted by the Debtor. Thus, this Court will consider only whether or not the transfer involved was fraudulent pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (a) and pursuant to Section 544(b) of the Code....

...In due course, both Defendants were served and filed their Answers, which basically consisted of some general admissions and some denials. Both the Debtor and the Bank have stipulated that all operating elements for fraudulent transfer claim under Section 726.106(1) of the Florida Statutes are without dispute and were established with the exception of whether or not, as a result of the pledging of all of the assets of the Debtor to secure the debt of McIntyre in order to enable him to purchase the stock interest of Kingsbury, it rendered the Debtor insolvent....

...sult of the LBO. In Count I, the Debtor requested the following relief: (1) a finding that the Debtor’s pledge of its assets as collateral pursuant to the Security Agreement and guaranty to the Bank were fraudulent transfers pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 726.106 (1); (2) that the Debtor may avoid said transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C....

...Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Security Agreement executed by the Debtor pledging the assets of the Debtor as collateral to the loan of McIntyre to the Bank be, and the same is hereby, deemed invalid and unenforceable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544 (b) and Fla. Stat. § 726.106 ....

...Willises and Giacomino under the first three counts: fraudulent transfers in violation of section 726.105(1)(a), Florida Statutes; fraudulent transfers in violation of section 726.105(1)(b), Florida Statutes; and fraudulent transfers in violation of section 726.106(1), Florida Statutes. The court found the defendants were not liable on the other three counts: fraudulent transfers in violation of section 726.106(2), Florida Statutes; tortious civil conspiracy; and alter ego liability....

...able for the debts of Summit. We affirm the trial court in its holding that Yeager failed to present a ease justifying the piercing of the corporate veil; we reverse the trial court’s holding that Yeager failed to prove a fraudulent transfer under section 726.106(2), Florida Statutes (1988), which provides: A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insol...

...Bradshaw does not deny, and it is clear’ from the record in any event, that Bradshaw was an “insider,” that the loans, if in fact they were loans as opposed to capital investments, were antecedent, and that at the time of the transfers Summit was insolvent. Bradshaw contends, and the trial court so held, that section 726.106(2) has no application because the “transfers made to Mr....

...ce of prior repayments from commissions received. For all the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that the payments were made in the ordinary *192 course of business and, therefore, were not in violation of section 726.106(2)....

...against a director to whom the corporation paid a pre-existing debt at a time when it was insolvent.” Id. at 1085 . This ruling, however, was made in the absence of a statute. Since Poe, the legislature substantially codified the holding of Poe in section 726.106(2)....

...This provision modifies the holding in Poe to the extent that a preferential transfer made in the ordinary course of business is not prohibited so that without a finding of a violation of the statute, reimbursement would not be required. Having determined that a fraudulent transfer under section 726.106(2) was proved, we have a more difficult question to answer and one not yet resolved by Florida courts....

...nst creditors who have no connection with the corporation. The Poe court made no decision as to whether pro rata distribution would be appropriate even in a preferential transfer case. It merely approved a cause of action. But since Poe, we now have section 726.106(2) which makes the conduct involved herein “fraudulent.” By this section, the legislature made fraudulent any transfer to an insider for an antecedent debt when the debtor was insolvent, unless an appropriate defense was proved....

admitted transfer was made to avoid creditors). Section 726.106, Florida Statute, provides that a transfer