Remedies ~ Money Judgment § 8(b) and (c)

Money_Judgment Remedies Mainuvta08bcmoneyjudgment

THE MONEY JUDGMENT REMEDY

UVTA § 8(b) AND (c).

(b) To the extent a transfer is avoidable in an action by a creditor under Section 7(a)(1), the following rules apply:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under subsection (c), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against:
(i) the first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or
(ii) an immediate or mediate transferee of the first transferee, other than:
(A) a good-faith transferee that took for value; or
(B) an immediate or mediate good-faith transferee of a person described in clause (A).
(2) Recovery pursuant to Section 7(a)(1) or (b) of or from the asset transferred or its proceeds, by levy or otherwise, is available only against a person described in paragraph (1)(i) or (ii).

(c) If the judgment under subsection (b) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.


#avoidabilityrequirement8b


(b) To the extent a transfer is avoidable in an action by a creditor under Section 7(a)(1), the following rules apply:

Prefatory Note (UVTA 2014). Defenses.
The amendments refine in relatively minor respects several provisions relating to defenses available to a transferee or obligee, as follows: (2) Section 8(b), derived from Bankruptcy Code §§ 550(a), (b) (1984), creates a defense for a subsequent transferee (that is, a transferee other than the first transferee) that takes in good faith and for value, and for any subsequent good-faith transferee from such a person.
The amendments clarify the meaning of § 8(b) by rewording it to follow more closely the wording of Bankruptcy Code §§ 550(a), (b) (which is substantially unchanged as of 2014).
Among other things, the amendments make clear that the defense applies to recovery of or from the transferred property or its proceeds, by levy or otherwise, as well as to an action for a money judgment.
Reporter's Comment to § 8(b) cmt. 2 ¶ 1.
Subsection (b) is derived from Bankruptcy Code §§ 550(a), (b) (1984).
The value of the asset transferred is limited to the value of the levyable interest of the transferor, exclusive of any interest encumbered by a valid lien. See § 1(2).
Reporter's Comment to § 8(b) cmt. 2 ¶ 2.
The requirement of Bankruptcy Code § 550(b)(1) (1984) that a transferee be “without knowledge of the voidability of the transfer” in order to be protected has been omitted as inappropriate.
Knowledge of the facts rendering the transfer voidable would be inconsistent with the good faith that is required of a protected transferee.
Knowledge of the voidability of a transfer would seem to involve a legal conclusion.
Determination of the voidability of the transfer ought not to require the court to inquire into the legal sophistication of the transferee.
Reporter's Comment to § 8(b) cmt. 2 ¶ 3.
A transfer of property by the transferee of a voidable transfer might, on appropriate facts, be avoidable for reasons independent of the original voidable transfer.
In such a case the subsequent transferee may be entitled to a defense under § 8(b) to an action based on the original voidable transfer, but that defense would not apply to an action based on the subsequent transfer that is independently voidable.
For example, suppose that X transfers property to Y in a transfer voidable under this Act, and that Y later transfers the property to Z, who is a good-faith transferee for value.
In general, C 1, a creditor of X, would have the right to a money judgment against Y pursuant to § 8(b), but C 1 could not recover under this Act from Z, who would be protected by § 8(b)(1)(ii)(A).
However, it might be the case that Y’s transfer to Z is independently voidable as to Y’s creditors (including C 1, as creditor of Y by dint of its rights under this Act).
Such might be the case if, for example, the value received by Y in exchange for the transfer is not reasonably equivalent and Y is in financial distress, or if Y made the transfer with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any of its creditors.
In such a case creditors of Y may pursue remedies against Z with respect to that independently voidable transfer, and the defense afforded to Z by § 8(b)(1)(ii)(A) would not apply to that action.
Of course choice of law must be considered in such a situation: the jurisdiction whose law governs the voidability of the original transfer from X to Y and the consequent liability of Y and subsequent transferees need not be the same as the jurisdiction whose law governs the voidability of the independently voidable transfer from Y to Z and the consequent liability of Z and subsequent transferees.
Reporter's Comment to § 8(b).
Section 8(b) limits damages under this Act to the amount of the plaintiff creditor’s claim, and that limitation is overridden in bankruptcy by the rule of Moore v. Bay, 284 U.S. 4 (1931), which Congress unmistakably maintained when it enacted the Bankruptcy Code. ***
JayNote
The language "[t]o the extent a transfer is avoidable" is critical to the availability of the money judgment remedy, which is not available only, unless and until the challenged transfer is proven by the creditor to be avoidable. If, for whatever reason, the transfer is not avoidable, then the money judgment remedy is absolutely and utterly unavailable under the clear text of § 8(b).
The non-money remedies (avoidance, attachment, etc.) are found in § 7, which is where the money judgment remedy should have been placed as well. Courts have gone well out of their way to distinguish this "money judgment" remedy from "damages", although how exactly they differ has rarely been discussed, much less convincingly explained.

#intermediarytransferees8b1


(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the creditor may recover judgment for the value of the asset transferred, as adjusted under subsection (c), or the amount necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim, whichever is less. The judgment may be entered against:
(i) the first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or
(ii) an immediate or mediate transferee of the first transferee, other than:
(A) a good-faith transferee that took for value; or
(B) an immediate or mediate good-faith transferee of a person described in clause (A).
JayNote
This says that if a creditor could avoid a transaction, the creditor may alternatively elect to receive a "money judgment" (which is different in form, but maybe not practical effect, from "damages"). The money judgment can be collected from a Transferee or any subsequent Transferee, until you get to a Transferee who can assert the Good Faith defense and paid reasonably equivalent value.
This provision really belongs in Section 7 (which relates to creditors' remedies), and not in Section 8. It is perhaps the single best example of the structural mis-organization within the UFTA/UVTA.

[#recoverydefendant8b2]


(2) Recovery pursuant to Section 7(a)(1) or (b) of or from the asset transferred or its proceeds, by levy or otherwise, is available only against a person described in paragraph (1)(i) or (ii).
JayNote
This provision specifies who a creditor's remedy should be against. This provision should, of course, have properly been placed somewhere in § 7 as well.

#judgmentamountequities8c


(c) If the judgment under subsection (b) is based upon the value of the asset transferred, the judgment must be for an amount equal to the value of the asset at the time of the transfer, subject to adjustment as the equities may require.

Reporter's Comment to § 8(c) cmt. 3.
Subsection (c) has no analogue in Bankruptcy Code § 550(a), (b) (1984).
The measure of the recovery of a creditor against a transferee is usually limited to the value of the asset transferred at the time of the transfer. See, e.g., United States v. Fernon, 640 F.2d 609, 611 (5th Cir. 1981); Hamilton Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Halstead, 134 N.Y. 520, 31 N.E. 900 (1892); cf. Buffum v. Peter Barceloux Co., 289 U.S. 227 (1932) (transferee’s objection to trial court’s award of highest value of asset between the date of the transfer and the date of the decree of avoidance rejected because an award measured by value as of time of the transfer plus interest from that date would have been larger).
The premise of § 8(c) is that changes in value of the asset transferred that occur after the transfer should ordinarily not affect the amount of the creditor’s recovery.
Circumstances may require a departure from that measure of the recovery, however, as the cases decided under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act and other laws derived from the Statute of 13 Elizabeth illustrate.
Thus, if the value of the asset at the time of levy and sale to enforce the judgment of the creditor has been enhanced by improvements of the asset transferred or discharge of liens on the property, a good-faith transferee should be reimbursed for the outlay for such a purpose to the extent the sale proceeds were increased thereby. See Bankruptcy Code § 550(d) (1984); Janson v. Schier, 375 A.2d 1159, 1160 (N.H. 1977); Anno., 8 A.L.R. 527 (1920).
If the value of the asset at the time of the transfer has been diminished by severance and disposition of timber or minerals or fixtures, the transferee should be liable for the amount of the resulting reduction. See Damazo v. Wahby, 269 Md. 252, 257, 305 A.2d 138, 142 (1973).
If the transferee has collected rents, harvested crops, or derived other income from the use or occupancy of the asset after the transfer, the liability of the transferee should be limited in any event to the net income after deduction of the expense incurred in earning the income. Anno., 60 A.L.R.2d 593 (1958).
On the other hand, adjustment for the equities does not warrant an award to the creditor of consequential damages alleged to accrue from mismanagement of the asset after the transfer.
JayNote
The amount of the Money Judgment to be awarded to the Creditor is based on the value of the asset that is transferred, although the Court may adjust this amount in fairness to the parties.

#burdens


BURDEN OF PROOF

(g) The following rules determine the burden of proving matters referred to in this section:

(1) A party that seeks to invoke subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) has the burden of proving the applicability of that subsection.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), the creditor has the burden of proving each applicable element of subsection (b) or (c).
(3) The transferee has the burden of proving the applicability to the transferee of subsection (b)(1)(ii)(A) or (B).
(4) A party that seeks adjustment under subsection (c) has the burden of proving the adjustment.
JayNote
The burden of proving entitlement to a money judgment is on the Creditor.

#standardsproof


STANDARD OF PROOF

(h) The standard of proof required to establish matters referred to in this section is preponderance of the evidence.

Prefatory Note (UVTA 2014). Evidentiary Matters.
New §§ 4(c), 5(c), 8(g), and 8(h) add uniform rules allocating the burden of proof and defining the standard of proof with respect to claims for relief and defenses under the Act.
Language in the former comments to § 2 relating to the presumption of insolvency created by § 2(b) has been moved to the text of that provision, the better to assure its uniform application.

BANKRUPTCY CODE § 550

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to the extent that a transfer is avoided under section 544, 545, 547, 548, 549, 553(b), or 724(a) of this title, the trustee may recover, for the benefit of the estate, the property transferred, or, if the court so orders, the value of such property, from—
(1) the initial transferee of such transfer or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made; or
(2) any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.





MONEY JUDGMENT TOPICS AND OPINIONS


© 2022 Jay D. Adkisson. All rights reserved. No claim to government works or the works of the Uniform Law Commission. The information contained in this website is for general educational purposes only, does not constitute any legal advice or opinion, and should not be relied upon in relation to particular cases. Use this information at your own peril; it is no substitute for the legal advice or opinion of an attorney licensed to practice law in the appropriate jurisdiction. This site https://voidabletransactions.com Contact: jay [at] jayad.com or by phone to 702-953-9617.