Truelove v. Buckley
318 Ga. App. 207
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Buckley obtained a judgment against Jeffrey Truelove circa 1998 for about $100,000 and a writ of fieri facias was filed and renewed.
- Jeffrey needed funds to acquire the property; Peggy purchased it in Jeffrey’s name, with the property deeded to Jeffrey at closing and later transferred to Peggy.
- At closing, Peggy funded the purchase and Jeffrey transferred the property to Peggy to satisfy this debt, with a subsequent same-day transfer back to Peggy’s ownership.
- A 10-year Buy Out Lease Purchase agreement was executed: Jeffrey would lease from Peggy with payments toward purchase, which Peggy later rescinded in 2010, though Jeffrey continued to lease at a reduced rent.
- Buckley brought suit in 2010 seeking to void the transfer under OCGA 18-2-74/75; the trial court granted Buckley summary judgment under 18-2-75(b), later reversed on appeal.
- The appellate court held that the transfer was not a valid constructively fraudulent transfer under 18-2-75(b) because the transaction did not involve an antecedent debt substantially in any preexisting form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18-2-75(b) supports a fraud finding | Buckley asserts transfer was fraudulent as an insider transfer for an antecedent debt with debtor insolvent and insider had reasonable belief. | Appellants contend no genuine antecedent debt and intent requirement under pre-UFTA concepts; no actual intent necessary under modern UFTA but antecedent debt absent. | 18-2-75(b) not satisfied; transfer not an antecedent-debt constructively fraudulent transfer. |
| Whether Buckley was entitled to summary judgment under 18-2-75(a) | Buckley contends the transfer qualifies under 18-2-75(a) based on value received and insolvency. | Appellants argue summary judgment under (a) is improper and not properly before the court because no cross-appeal on (a) issue. | Court did not decide (a) issue on appeal; not considered due to lack of cross-appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600 (Ga. 2011) (UFTA guidance; constructs intent considerations)
- Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189 (Ga. 2003) (statutory construction principles and debt interpretation)
- Hasbro, Inc. v. Serafino, 37 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D. Mass. 1999) (substantial contemporaneity considerations in transfers)
- United States v. Sherrill, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ga. 2009) (insider definitions under UFTA and lack of transferor intent language)
- Farstveet v. Rudolph, 630 N.W.2d 24 (N.D. 2001) (constructive fraud under UFTA; intent not required)