Cavadi v. DeYeso, 458 Mass. 615

Cavadi, as assignee of the FDIC, holds a 1991 judgment against Barnes and sues to reach assets Barnes allegedly holds through DeYeso in Vineyard, New Hampshire, and South Boston properties.
Cavadi filed claims under common law reach-and-apply and under G. L. c. 109A (UFTA); trial court held UFTA §10 four-year bar bars Cavadi’s claim.
DeYeso argued UFTA provides exclusive relief and abrogates nonstatutory reach-and-apply; Cavadi’s UFTA claim (Count 0) was dismissed via a special motion to dismiss and is not appealed.
Trial judge found Vineyard property is Barnes’s true ownership via a trust arrangement with DeYeso as straw; New Hampshire property similarly linked to Barnes’s funds; South Boston property transferred to DeYeso; court ordered relief accordingly.
Court ultimately affirms Vineyard and New Hampshire outcomes, but reverses on the South Boston property and remands for judgment in DeYeso’s favor on Count III.
The Court distinguishes nonstatutory reach-and-apply from UFTA, applying traditional creditor’s bill analysis to Vineyard and New Hampshire while holding UFTA preempts the constructively-traced South Boston claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UFTA preempts the nonstatutory reach-and-apply remedy	Cavadi argues UFTA supplements common law and does not fully preempt nonstatutory relief	DeYeso contends UFTA is broad and exclusive to fraudulent transfers	UFTA does not implicitly abolish nonstatutory reach-and-apply; it preempts only where overlapping, otherwise supplements the common law
Whether Vineyard property is Barnes’s equitable asset via resulting trust	Cavadi contends Barnes funded the down payment and transfers show intent to retain beneficial interest	DeYeso argues title in her name and lack of donative intent reject a resulting trust	Barnes holds the Vineyard property as the true owner; entire property held in trust for him
Whether New Hampshire property is Barnes’s asset via resulting trust	Cavadi asserts Barnes provided the principal down payment and funds through Danube	DeYeso maintains no credible proof of Barnes’s funds; relies on her testimony	Barnes’s contribution created a $94,854 interest; Cavadi prevails on Count II
Whether the South Boston property transfer supports a constructively-trusted interest preempted by UFTA	Cavadi argues transfer was fraud to shield assets for Barnes’s creditors	DeYeso asserts transfer was for nominal consideration or other non-fraud grounds	Constructive trust theory based on fraud to third parties is preempted by UFTA; conveyance cannot be set aside under nonstatutory reach-and-apply

Foster v. Evans, 384 Mass. 687 (1980s) (nonstatutory creditor's bills reach assets not obtainable at law)
Pettibone v. Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis R.R., 148 Mass. 411 (1892) (creditor's bill purposes and reach-and-apply origins)
Blumenthal v. Blumenthal, 303 Mass. 275 (1939) (equity jurisdiction and special purposes; origin of general equity power)
Eyssi v. Lawrence, 416 Mass. 194 (1993) (statutes supplemented by common law; not implied repeal)
In re Valente, 360 F.3d 256 (1st Cir. 2004) (UFTA supplements common law; not exclusive; uniform baseline with supplementation)
Maffei v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, 449 Mass. 235 (2007) (trusts and resulting/constructive trusts in creditor contexts)