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

JMH sold 90% of its insurance business assets to RAM in 2011 for $108,870; RAM later owed JMH a judgment of $98,606.94 from prior litigation.
In October 2013 RAM transferred PVIA Partnership’s customer lists and agency contracts to Messersmith Ventures for $250; Messersmith thereafter used those contracts to operate the agency.
JMH sued under the Nebraska Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), seeking avoidance of the transfer and authorization to levy execution on transferred assets or their proceeds to satisfy JMH’s existing judgment against RAM.
The district court implicitly found a fraudulent transfer but awarded JMH a monetary judgment of $250 (the amount paid by Messersmith Ventures) and allowed execution only up to that sum.
JMH appealed the form of relief; Messersmith cross-appealed arguing no fraudulent transfer occurred and that $250 was the correct valuation.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the finding of a fraudulent transfer but reversed the $250 judgment and remanded, directing the trial court to permit JMH to levy execution on the transferred assets or their proceeds under § 36-708(b) of the UFTA.

Issue	JMH's Argument	Messersmith's Argument	Held
Whether RAM’s transfer to Messersmith was a fraudulent transfer under the UFTA	Transfer was fraudulent because debt preexisted transfer, no reasonably equivalent value received, and RAM was insolvent	No fraudulent transfer: transferred items either were not "assets" (encumbered by bank lien) or were worth the $250 received	Court (de novo) found record supports an implicit finding of fraudulent transfer (affirmed)
Proper remedy under the UFTA	Court should allow JMH to levy execution on the transferred assets or proceeds (to satisfy JMH’s prior $98,606.94 judgment)	$250 monetary judgment was correct because that was the value proved at trial	Monetary judgment of $250 reversed; remanded with direction to allow execution on transferred assets or their proceeds under § 36-708(b)

Reed v. Reed, 277 Neb. 391, 763 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2009) (UFTA actions are equitable; appellate review of equity matters is de novo subject to trial-court fact-finder deference in credibility conflicts)
Eli’s, Inc. v. Lemen, 256 Neb. 515, 591 N.W.2d 543 (Neb. 1999) (appeal of district court determination under UFTA is equitable and reviewed de novo)
Trieweiler v. Sears, 268 Neb. 952, 689 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2004) (equity courts may craft novel remedies to address situations contrary to equitable principles)