California Voidable Transaction Statutes
Site.CaliforniaVoidableTransactionUVTAFraudulentTransferUFTA History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup
3439.
3439. [Title]
3439.01.
3439.01. [Definitions]
3439.02.
3439.02. [Insolvency]
3439.03.
3439.03. [Value]
3439.04.
3439.04. [Transfers Voidable As to Present Or Future Creditors]
3439.05.
3439.05. [Transfers Voidable As To Present Creditors Only]
JayNote: California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of UVTA § 5(b).
- JayNote: California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of UVTA § 5(b).
3439.06.
3439.06. [When Transfer Is Deemed Made]
3439.07.
3439.07. [Remedies]
3439.08.
3439.08. [Defenses]
3439.09.
3439.09. [Extinguishment (similar to Statute of Limitations)]
3439.10.
3439.10. [Conflict Of Laws]
3439.12.
3439.12. [Supplementary Law]
3439.13.
3439.13. [Uniform Law]
3439.14.
3439.14. [Effective Date]
- California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever misguided reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.
- California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever misguided reasons, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is fine because the UVTA's drafting committee wasn't particularly keen on that section either, but had it foisted into the UVTA by the Uniform Protected Series Act drafting committee, and at any rate California doesn't recognize series LLCs.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is fine because the UVTA's drafting committee wasn't particularly keen on that section either, but had it foisted into the UVTA by the Uniform Protected Series Act drafting committee, and at any rate California doesn't have its own series LLC enabling legislation.
- California retained from its UFTA the Seven-Year "drop dead" extinguishment provision found in Cal.Civ.Code 3439.09(c), which arguably the ULC should have itself adopted.
- California retained from its UFTA the seven-year "drop dead" extinguishment provision found in Cal.Civ.Code 3439.09(c), which arguably the ULC should have itself adopted.
- The main differences between the California UVTA and the Uniform Laws Commission's UVTA may be summarized as the following:California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.
- The differences between the California UVTA and the Uniform Laws Commission's UVTA are minor and may be summarized as the following:California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever misguided reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.
- Otherwise, the California UVTA is pretty much the same as the uniform law.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is fine because the UVTA's drafting committee wasn't particularly keen on that section either but had it foisted into the UVTA by the Uniform Protected Series Act drafting committee.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is fine because the UVTA's drafting committee wasn't particularly keen on that section either, but had it foisted into the UVTA by the Uniform Protected Series Act drafting committee, and at any rate California doesn't recognize series LLCs.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is OK because the UVTA's drafting committee didn't want to either.
- California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is fine because the UVTA's drafting committee wasn't particularly keen on that section either but had it foisted into the UVTA by the Uniform Protected Series Act drafting committee.
- # California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.# California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of § 5(b) for the ostensible reason that California already has its own insider preference laws, sort of.# California retained from its UFTA the Seven-Year "drop dead" extinguishment provision found in Cal.Civ.Code 3439.09(c), which arguably the ULC should have itself adopted.# California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is OK because the UVTA's drafting committee didn't want to either.
- California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of § 5(b) for the ostensible reason that California already has its own insider preference laws, sort of.California retained from its UFTA the Seven-Year "drop dead" extinguishment provision found in Cal.Civ.Code 3439.09(c), which arguably the ULC should have itself adopted.California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is OK because the UVTA's drafting committee didn't want to either.
- JayNote:The main differences between the California UVTA and the Uniform Laws Commission's UVTA may be summarized as the following:# California did not adopt the definitions of "affiliate", "insider" or "relative" for whatever reason, so those terms will be determined by decisional law.# California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of § 5(b) for the ostensible reason that California already has its own insider preference laws, sort of.# California retained from its UFTA the Seven-Year "drop dead" extinguishment provision found in Cal.Civ.Code 3439.09(c), which arguably the ULC should have itself adopted.# California did not adopt § 11 relating to series organizations, which is OK because the UVTA's drafting committee didn't want to either.
(:description California Voidable TransactionStatutes:)
(:description California Voidable Transaction Statutes:)
California State
California State CaliforniaVoidableTransactionUVTAFraudulentTransferUFTA
California Charging Order Opinions
California Voidable Transaction Opinions
(:title STATE Voidable Transaction Statutes:) (:Summary: STATE Voidable Transaction Statutes:) (:description STATE Voidable TransactionStatutes:) (:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, STATE:)
(:title California Voidable Transaction Statutes:) (:Summary: California Voidable Transaction Statutes:) (:description California Voidable TransactionStatutes:) (:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, California:)
STATE State
California State
TEXT
California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act
California UVTA a/k/a CUVTA California Civil Code §§ 3439 - 3439.14
{ Check Currency - Current Only As Of January 1, 2020 }
3439.
This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act.
3439.01.
As used in this chapter the following definitions are applicable:
3439.02.
3439.03.
Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied, but value does not include an unperformed promise made otherwise than in the ordinary course of the promisor’s business to furnish support to the debtor or another person.
3439.04.
3439.05.
JayNote: California did not adopt the Insider Preference Test of UVTA § 5(b).
3439.06.
For the purposes of this chapter:
3439.07.
3439.08.
3439.09.
A cause of action with respect to a transfer or obligation under this chapter is extinguished unless action is brought pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3439.07 or levy made as provided in subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 3439.07:
3439.10.
JayNote: California did not adopt the Protected Series provisions of UVTA § 11.
3439.12.
Unless displaced by the provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relating to principal and agent, estoppel, laches, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, insolvency, or other validating or invalidating cause, supplement its provisions.
3439.13.
This chapter shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.
3439.14.
STATE Charging Order Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.STATE list=normal fmt=title:)
California Charging Order Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.California list=normal fmt=title:)
(:title STATE Voidable Transaction Statutes:)
(:Summary: STATE Voidable Transaction Statutes:)
(:description STATE Voidable TransactionStatutes:)
(:keywords voidable transaction, uvta, fraudulent transfer, ufta, fraudulent conveyance, STATE:)
(:linebreaks:)
STATE State
TEXT
STATE Charging Order Opinions
(:pagelist link=Category.STATE list=normal fmt=title:)