Mid Penn Bank v. Farhat, 74 A.3d 149

Mid Penn Bank appealed after a Dauphin County court entered judgment in favor of Zene Farhat and Saheira Farhat on a UFTA claim.
Zene Farhat, son of Saheira and Ismail Farhat, owned I & S Homes and received a $165,000 unsecured line of credit on June 15, 2007.
Terrence Monteverde instructed security or payment; Zene refused security and stopped payments after December 30, 2009.
On January 15, 2010, the property was transferred back to Saheira for $1; Saheira later sold it for $275,000 in May 2010.
A judgment against Zene and a lien against his primary residence were entered June 10, 2010; Zene’s residence had a $149,778.71 mortgage and a $50,000 HELOC.
Trial court found in favor of Zene/Saheira; the appellate court vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Mid Penn Bank consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Zene's transfer to his parents violate § 5104?	Zene intended to hinder, delay, or defraud the bank.	Transfer was not made with actual intent to defraud and lacked other indicia of fraud.	Yes; transfer supported fraud under § 5104.
Did the trial court err in evaluating § 5104(2), (5), (7) regarding control and stake in the property?	Zene controlled the property and held a financial stake during ownership.	Zene had no control or financial stake after the transfer to his parents.	Legal error; court held Zene did have control/stake, affecting § 5104 analysis.
Do § 5104(8) and (9) support a finding of fraud?	Zene received less than reasonably equivalent value and was insolvent around the transfer.	Trial court misapplied these factors and found no fraud.	Yes; § 5104(8) and (9) support fraud, warranting remand for judgment in favor of Appellant.

Gallaher v. Riddle, 850 A.2d 748 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limited standard of review for equity decrees; findings must be supported)
Ralston v. Ralston, 55 A.3d 736 (Pa. Super. 2012) (deed terms govern nature/extent of conveyed interests; no implied equity)