Janice M. Hinrichsen, Inc. v. Messersmith Ventures, 296 Neb. 712

JMH (Janice M. Hinrichsen, Inc.) sold 90% of its insurance agency assets to RAM in Jan 2011 for $108,870; RAM later failed to complete payments.
In July 2012 JMH obtained a judgment against RAM for $98,606.94.
RAM (via managing partner of PVIA Partnership) transferred customer lists and primary agency contracts to Messersmith Ventures for $250 in Oct 2013; Messersmith then operated the agency and received commissions.
JMH sued under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), seeking avoidance, ability to levy execution on transferred assets/proceeds, and other relief.
The district court implicitly found a fraudulent transfer but awarded JMH a money judgment of $250 (the price paid), limiting execution to that amount.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the finding of a fraudulent transfer but reversed the $250 monetary judgment, directing that relief under §36-708(b) should permit JMH to levy execution on the transferred assets or their proceeds to satisfy the existing judgment against RAM.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (JMH)	Defendant's Argument (Messersmith Ventures)	Held
Whether RAM’s transfer to Messersmith was a fraudulent transfer under the UFTA	Transfer occurred after creditor’s claim; RAM received no reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent — so transfer was fraudulent under §36-706(a)	Denied fraudulent transfer: either (a) transferred items weren’t "assets" because encumbered by bank lien, or (b) Messersmith paid reasonably equivalent value ($250)	Court (de novo): implicit finding of fraudulent transfer affirmed — evidence supported that transferred business was worth substantially more than $250 and not fully encumbered by lien
Whether monetary judgment of $250 was appropriate relief under the UFTA	Sought avoidance and ability to levy execution on assets/proceeds (not a token $250 judgment); charging order argued but not applicable to these assets	District court’s $250 judgment was correct because that was amount paid and Messersmith testified to that value	Court: reversed $250 monetary award; ordered that §36-708(b) relief is appropriate — JMH may levy execution on the transferred assets or their proceeds to satisfy its existing judgment against RAM

Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391 (discussing that UFTA actions are equitable)
Eli’s, Inc. v. Lemen, 256 Neb. 515 (UFTA appeals are equitable; appellate de novo review of equity actions)
Bowers v. Dougherty, 260 Neb. 74 (fraudulent conveyance is an equitable action)
Trieweiler v. Sears, 268 Neb. 952 (equity courts may fashion novel remedies when appropriate)