Site /
Uniformity
Site.Mainuvta13uniformity History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to output
Changed line 6 from:
Uniformity [[!Topic]] [--Mainuvta13uniformity--]
to:
Uniformity [--Mainuvta13uniformity--]
Changed lines 1-4 from:
(:title TOPICSHORT:)
(:Summary:TOPICLONG:)
(:descriptionTOPICLONG:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance,TOPIC:)
(:Summary:
(:description
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance,
to:
(:title Uniformity:)
(:Summary: Uniformity:)
(:description Uniformity:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, Uniformity:)
(:Summary: Uniformity:)
(:description Uniformity:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, Uniformity:)
Changed line 6 from:
to:
Uniformity [[!Topic]] [--Mainuvta13uniformity--]
Changed lines 8-20 from:
to:
!!UNIFORMITY
!!!UVTA § 13. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION.
[+This [Act] shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this [Act] among states enacting it.+]
->JayNote
-->This section effectively allows litigants to cite to decisional law from other enacting jurisdictions in support or in opposition to an interpretation of the UVTA. Barring an important interest specific to a particular state, courts should typically rule in conformity with the majority rule of other states on particular issues, assuming that majority rule makes at least minimal sense.
!!!COURT OPINIONS: UNIFORMITY
Orchard v. Western Energy Production, LP, 2019 WL 5293489 (Ky.App., Unpublished, Oct. 18, 2019).
!!!UVTA § 13. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION.
[+This [Act] shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this [Act] among states enacting it.+]
->JayNote
-->This section effectively allows litigants to cite to decisional law from other enacting jurisdictions in support or in opposition to an interpretation of the UVTA. Barring an important interest specific to a particular state, courts should typically rule in conformity with the majority rule of other states on particular issues, assuming that majority rule makes at least minimal sense.
!!!COURT OPINIONS: UNIFORMITY
Orchard v. Western Energy Production, LP, 2019 WL 5293489 (Ky.App., Unpublished, Oct. 18, 2019).
Changed lines 24-26 from:
!!!TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal fmt=title:)
(:pagelist link=Category.
to:
!!!UNIFORMITY TOPICS AND OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.Uniformity list=normal fmt=title:)
(:pagelist link=Category.Uniformity list=normal fmt=title:)
Added lines 1-17:
(:title TOPICSHORT:)
(:Summary: TOPICLONG:)
(:description TOPICLONG:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, TOPIC:)
(:linebreaks:)
TOPIC [[!Topic]] [--PAGENAME--]
[[<<]]
TEXT
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
----
!!!TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal fmt=title:)
----
(:Summary: TOPICLONG:)
(:description TOPICLONG:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, TOPIC:)
(:linebreaks:)
TOPIC [[!Topic]] [--PAGENAME--]
[[<<]]
TEXT
[[<<]]
[[<<]]
----
!!!TEXT OPINIONS
(:pagelist link=Category.TEXT list=normal fmt=title:)
----