Liability for Fraudulent Transfer
On January 29, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Freeman v. First Union Ntl Bank which is important to attorneys and others involved in Florida asset protection planning. Some creditors and their attorneys have attempted to thwart asset protection planning by attacking debtor's attorneys and their financial institutions for their part in assisting fraudulent conveyances. The Supreme Court held that the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Statute (UFTA) as enacted in Florida does not provide a basis for claims against third parties of aiding and abetting a fraudulent conveyance. .
These attacks have been consistently rejected by Florida's applellate courts. BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Inc, 842 So. 2d 155 (Fla 5th DCA 2003), issued February 10, 2003.The Supreme Court also rejected arguments that the UFTA could be used to impose liability on anyone other than the recipient of a fraudulent conveyance. The Court held that the UFTA is a statutory device to undo a fraudulent conveyance, but it is not intended to service as a vehicle by which a creditor can sue anyone other than the transferee of the conveyance for the return of the property or its value.
