Fraudulent Conveyance

News & Analysis as of

Religious Institutions: October 2014

Timely Topics - Church splits and property disputes are not new, but they have certainly grown in number in recent years. In the seminal case on church property disputes, Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 20 L....more

Even a Tax Authority May Sometimes Have to Pay

In Clinton County Treasurer v. Wolinsky, 511 B.R. 34 (N.D.N.Y. 2014), a Chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a property tax foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and then to recover damages from the foreclosing county. The...more

Property Tax Foreclosure: Tax Authority May Have to Pay for Equity in Property

A chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a property tax foreclosure as a fraudulent transfer and then to recover damages from the foreclosing county. The bankruptcy court agreed that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance, but...more

Affiliate Transfer: Fraudulent Conveyance or Unwinding Resulting Trust?

A chapter 7 trustee sought to set aside as a debtor’s transfer of her interest in property held jointly with her husband to her husband’s corporation as a constructive fraudulent conveyance. The bankruptcy court agreed that...more

Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue [Video]

The United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called “Stern claims,” they can try or “hear” those...more

Bankruptcy Beat: The US Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of the Bankruptcy Court in Stern v. Marshall-Type Proceedings

On June 19, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165 (2014) affirmed and clarified its prior decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) which...more

The Supreme Court Continues to Limit Bankruptcy Court Powers: The Constitutional Powers of a Bankruptcy Judge: Why it Matters

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued the decision Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, Trustee of the Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., which deals with the constitutional limits on...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Deciding Stern Claims in Bankruptcy Courts, But Leaves Big Questions Unresolved

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however,...more

Stern Revisited: Big Questions Remain Unresolved

In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v. Marshall and made clear that a...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction (Somewhat)

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several...more

Supreme Court Ruling in Bellingham Offers Comfort but Little Clarity

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and...more

Anna Nicole Smith Revisited: Supreme Court Closes Gap on "Stern claims;" Declines to Clarify Jurisdiction for Certain Bankruptcy...

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called "Stern claims," they can try or...more

The “Law’s” Limits On The Bankruptcy Court’s Ability To Impose Sanctions For Debtor Misconduct

In the first six months of 2014 the Supreme Court has already issued two opinions concerning the authority of the bankruptcy courts. The first opinion, Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), was issued in March. In Law,...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Procedure for Unconstitutional “Core” Matters Under Stern v. Marshall in Executive Benefits...

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594. In Stern, the Court was faced with the question of whether the Bankruptcy Court had statutory and Constitutional authority to decide a counterclaim...more

"Supreme Court Holds That Bankruptcy Courts May Report and Recommend on Stern Claims"

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.). The Bellingham decision clarifies one of the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Ruling in In re Bellingham

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction but Leaves Some Questions Unanswered in Executive Benefits Insurance...

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely followed case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Bellingham) this...more

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction Over Defendants in Fraudulent Transfer Actions; Leaves an Open Door to...

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain...more

Supreme Court Decides Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison

In Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200, the Supreme Court ruled that when Article III does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a core bankruptcy claim, the bankruptcy court may issue...more

When One Solution Is Better Than Two

Over the years, clients have sought my advice after they have obtained a judgment against a limited liability company or a corporation, and after they have tried, without success, to collect on that judgment. All of the...more

I gave my car to my brother and now I'm ready to file bankruptcy. Wrong!

If you gave your car to your brother and think you're ready to file bankruptcy, you are about as wrong as wrong can be....more

Third Party is Liable For Attorney Fees to Party Damaged by Fraudulent Conveyance

In Cardinale v. Miller, 2014 DJDAR 252 (2014), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District decided a unique civil procedure issue arising out of an attorney fee award to a judgment creditor. The court...more

Title Troubles In Texas, North Dakota And Montana: Conveyances To “Blind Trusts”

The Title Question - Your title examiner often encounters a conveyance to an individual “as Trustee” with no Trust specified in the instrument....more

Mere Recording Of Deed Does Not Commence Four Year Statute Of Limitations On Fraudulent Conveyance [Florida]

Under fraudulent conveyance law, a creditor of a debtor can reach property of the debtor that the debtor transferred to third parties if the transfer is a fraudulent conveyance. However, Fla.Stats. §726.110(1) provides that...more

Looking Back on Appeals That Made a Difference

Originally published in the New York Law Journal on March 6, 2013. Almost 50 years have elapsed between my first and most recent appearance before the New York Court of Appeals and a recent LEXIS search shows I...more

29 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2