- previously known as -
Caution state law variances!
What Is "Value"?
UVTA § 3. VALUE.
Reporter's Comment: 1. This section defines when “value” is given for a transfer or an obligation. “Value” is used in that sense in various contexts in this Act, frequently with a qualifying adjective. Used in that sense the word appears in the following provisions:
4(a)(2) (“reasonably equivalent value”);
4(b)(8) (“value ... reasonably equivalent”);
5(a) (“reasonably equivalent value”);
8(a) (“reasonably equivalent value”);
8(b)(1)(ii)(A) and (d) (“value”);
8(f)(1) (“new value”); and
8(f)(3) (“present value”).
“Value” is also used in other senses in this Act, to which this section is not relevant. See, e.g., §§ 8(b)(1), 8(c) (“value” in the sense of the value of a transferred asset).
Prefatory Note (UFTA 1984): Reasonably equivalent value is required in order to constitute adequate consideration under the new Act. The new Act follows the Bankruptcy Code in eliminating good faith on the part of the transferee or obligee as an issue in the determination of whether adequate consideration is given by a transferee or obligee.
The new Act, like the Bankruptcy Code, allows the transferee or obligee to show good faith in defense after a creditor establishes that a fraudulent transfer has been made or a fraudulent obligation has been incurred. Thus a showing by a defendant that a reasonable equivalent has been given in good faith for a transfer or obligation is a complete defense although the debtor is shown to have intended to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.
(a) 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.
Reporter's Comment: 2. Section 3(a) is adapted from Bankruptcy Code § 548(d)(2)(A) (1984). See also § 3(a) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. The definition in Section 3 is not exclusive. “Value” is to be determined in light of the purpose of the Act to protect a debtor’s estate from being depleted to the prejudice of the debtor’s unsecured creditors. Consideration having no utility from a creditor’s viewpoint does not satisfy the statutory definition. The definition does not specify all the kinds of consideration that do not constitute value for the purposes of this Act—e.g., love and affection. See, e.g., United States v. West, 299 F.Supp. 661, 666 (D.Del. 1969).
3. Section 3(a) does not indicate what is “reasonably equivalent value” for a transfer or obligation. Under this Act, as under Bankruptcy Code § 548(a)(2) (1984), a transfer for security is ordinarily for a reasonably equivalent value notwithstanding a discrepancy between the value of the asset transferred and the debt secured, because the amount of the debt is the measure of the value of the interest in the asset that is transferred. See, e.g., Peoples-Pittsburgh Trust Co. v. Holy Family Polish Nat’l Catholic Church, Carnegie, Pa., 341 Pa. 390, 19 A.2d 360 (1941). If the debt is a voidable obligation under this Act, a transfer to secure it as well as the obligation would be vulnerable to attack as voidable. A transfer to satisfy or secure an antecedent debt owed an insider is also subject to avoidance under the conditions specified in Section 5(b).
4. Section 3(a) of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act has been thought not to recognize that an unperformed promise could constitute fair consideration. See McLaughlin, Application of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 404, 414 (1933). Courts construing these provisions of the prior law nevertheless have held unperformed promises to constitute value in a variety of circumstances. See, e.g., Harper v. Lloyd’s Factors, Inc., 214 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1954) (transfer of money for promise of factor to discount transferor’s purchase-money notes given to fur dealer); Schlecht v. Schlecht, 168 Minn. 168, 176-77, 209 N.W. 883, 886-87 (1926) (transfer for promise to make repairs and improvements on transferor’s homestead); Farmer’s Exchange Bank v. Oneida Motor Truck Co., 202 Wis. 266, 232 N.W. 536 (1930) (transfer in consideration of assumption of certain of transferor’s liabilities); see also Hummel v. Cernocky, 161 F.2d 685 (7th Cir. 1947) (transfer in consideration of cash, assumption of a mortgage, payment of certain debts, and agreement to pay other debts). Likewise a transfer in consideration of a negotiable note discountable at a commercial bank, or the purchase from an established, solvent institution of an insurance policy, annuity, or contract to provide care and accommodations clearly appears to be for value. On the other hand, an unperformed promise by an individual to support a parent or other transferor has generally been held not to constitute value. See, e.g., Springfield Ins. Co. v. Fry, 267 F.Supp. 693 (N.D.Okla. 1967); Sandler v. Parlapiano, 236 App.Div. 70, 258 N.Y.Supp. 88 (1st Dep’t 1932); Warwick Municipal Employees Credit Union v. Higham, 106 R.I. 363, 259 A.2d 852 (1969); Hulsether v. Sanders, 54 S.D. 412, 223 N.W. 335 (1929); Cooper v. Cooper, 22 Tenn.App. 473, 477, 124 S.W.2d 264, 267 (1939); Note, Rights of Creditors in Property Conveyed in Consideration of Future Support, 45 Iowa L.Rev. 546, 550-62 (1960). This Act adopts the view taken in the cases cited in determining whether an unperformed promise is value.
JayNote: One of the most important crucial terms in the Act is "reasonably equivalent value", which depends on the definition of value. Value is what is given in exchange for the transfer, and can include satisfaction of an outstanding debt. However, value does not include an unperformed promise.
(b) For the purposes of Section 4(a)(2) and Section 5, a person gives a reasonably equivalent value if the person acquires an interest of the debtor in an asset pursuant to a regularly conducted, noncollusive foreclosure sale or execution of a power of sale for the acquisition or disposition of the interest of the debtor upon default under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement.
5. Subsection (b) rejects the rule of such cases as Durrett v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 621 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1980) (nonjudicial foreclosure of a mortgage avoided as a voidable transfer when the property of an insolvent mortgagor was sold for less than 70% of its fair value); and Abramson v. Lakewood Bank & Trust Co., 647 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1164 (1982) (nonjudicial foreclosure held to be voidable transfer if made without fair consideration). Subsection (b) adopts the view taken in Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Madrid (In re Madrid), 21 B.R. 424 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982), aff’d on another ground, 725 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1984), that the price bid at a regularly conducted and noncollusive foreclosure sale determines the fair value of the property sold for purposes of voidable transfer law. See also BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 537 n.3 (1994) (similarly construing Bankruptcy Code § 548; opinion expressly limited to foreclosure of real estate mortgages).
Subsection (b) prescribes the effect of a sale meeting its requirements, whether the asset sold is personal or real property. It applies only to a sale under a mortgage, deed of trust, or security agreement. Subsection (b) thus does not apply to a sale foreclosing a nonconsensual lien, such as a tax lien. However, the subsection does apply to a foreclosure by sale of the interest of a vendee under an installment land contract in accordance with applicable law that requires or permits the foreclosure to be effected by a sale in the same manner as the foreclosure of a mortgage. See G. Osborne, G. Nelson, & D. Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law 83-84, 95-97 (1979).
If a lien given an insider for a present consideration is not perfected as against a subsequent bona fide purchaser or is so perfected after a delay following an extension of credit secured by the lien, foreclosure of the lien may result in a transfer for an antecedent debt that is voidable under Section 5(b).
Subsection (b) does not apply to an action under Section 4(a)(1) to avoid a transfer or obligation because made or incurred with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.
JayNote: A transferee who purchased property at a bona fide judicial sale has given reasonably equivalent value, but this rule doesn't apply to a claim arising under the Intent Test of § (4)(a)(1).
(c) A transfer is made for present value if the exchange between the debtor and the transferee is intended by them to be contemporaneous and is in fact substantially contemporaneous.
6. Subsection (c) is an adaptation of Bankruptcy Code § 547(c)(1) (1984). A transfer to an insider for an antecedent debt may be voidable under § 5(b).
JayNote: The transfer must be contemporaneous, i.e., a transfer from the debtor to the transferee at one time, and a transfer from the transferee to the debtor at another time, is not contemporaneous.
Bankruptcy Code § 548(d)(2) [VALUE]
In this section—
(A) “value” means property, or satisfaction or securing of a present or antecedent debt of the debtor, but does not include an unperformed promise to furnish support to the debtor or to a relative of the debtor;
(B) a commodity broker, forward contract merchant, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, or securities clearing agency that receives a margin payment, as defined in section 101, 741, or 761 of this title, or settlement payment, as defined in section 101 or 741 of this title, takes for value to the extent of such payment;
(C) a repo participant or financial participant that receives a margin payment, as defined in section 741 or 761 of this title, or settlement payment, as defined in section 741 of this title, in connection with a repurchase agreement, takes for value to the extent of such payment;
(D) a swap participant or financial participant that receives a transfer in connection with a swap agreement takes for value to the extent of such transfer; and
(E) a master netting agreement participant that receives a transfer in connection with a master netting agreement or any individual contract covered thereby takes for value to the extent of such transfer, except that, with respect to a transfer under any individual contract covered thereby, to the extent that such master netting agreement participant otherwise did not take (or is otherwise not deemed to have taken) such transfer for value.
C O M M O N P A G E F O O T E R
RECENT ARTICLES ON FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS
2018.04.22 ... State And Federal Fraudulent Transfer Law Diverge Over Exempt Property In Vorhes
2017.12.18 ... Revocation Of A Company's S-Election By Shareholders Not Deemed A Voidable Transaction In Arrowsmith
2017.12.07 ... 'I Only Gave It To My Spouse In Case I Got Sued' Defense Flops Once Again In Soley Case
2017.08.20 ... One Year Discovery Rule For Fraudulent Transfers Tested In PNC Bank Case
2017.05.30 ... The Good Faith Transferee Defined In Nautilus
Many more articles by Jay Adkisson found here
UVTA - LOGICAL ORGANIZATION (Designed For Litigators)
Overview of UVTA -- The process and result
UVTA - NUMERICAL ORGANIZATION (Confusing & Difficult To Use)
The Uniform Law Commission's complete copy of the UVTA with comments in PDF format is available here. The webpage for the UVTA, showing states that have enacted and much other information regarding the Act is found here.
1 - Definitions
(1) Affiliate -- (2) Asset -- (3) Claim -- (4) Creditor -- (5) Debt -- (6) Debtor -- (7) Electronic -- (8) Insider -- (9) Lien -- (10) Organization -- (11) Person -- (12) Property -- (13) Record -- (14) Relative -- (15) Sign -- (16) Transfer -- (17) Valid Lien
2 - Insolvency
3 - Value
4 - Transfer Or Obligation Voidable As To Present Or Future Creditor
5 - Transfer or Obligation Voidable As To Present Creditor
8 - Defenses, Liability, And Protection Of Transferee Or Obligee
10 - Governing Law
15 - Short Title
FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS IN BANKRUPTCY
OTHER INFORMATIONAL WEBSITES BY JAY ADKISSON
© 2018 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] jayadkisson.com or by phone to 949-200-7773 or by fax to 877-698-0678.