When fraudulent transfers are used to hide assets the subject of a debt collection, divorce, or bankruptcy case, the Court looks for badges of fraud. As explained in Wall Street Associates v. Brodsky, 257 A.D.2d 526, 529 (1st Dept 1999), the badges of fraud for fraudulent asset transfers or conveyances are:
- A Close Relationship Between The Parties
- A Transfer Outside The Ordinary Scope Of Business
- Inadequate Consideration
- Knowledge Of A Creditor’s Claim
- Retention Of Control Of The Property
For example, in AMP Servs. Ltd. v. Walanpatrias Found. a.k.a. Doraw, 2006 slip op. 7985 ; 34 A.D.3d 231; 824 N.Y.S.2d 37 (1st Dept, 2006), the Appellate Division upheld an injunction against a debtor dodging a debt collection proceeding. In applying New York Debtor and Creditor Law, the Appellate Division ruled that the debtor could not transfer a stock portfolio offshore to Europe because there were badges of fraud as mentioned by Wall Street Associates, 257 A.D.2d 526.
In another Appellate Division case, Dempster v. Overview Equities, Inc., 2004 slip op. 01149 ; 4 A.D.3d 495; 773 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2d Dept 2004), a divorcing husband transferred his residence to a Delaware corporation just before his valuation/equitable distribution hearing. Since the Delaware corporation had filed for bankruptcy, the residence was eventually sold by the bankruptcy court as a corporate asset. The husband in Dempster had also diminished his net worth by alleging he had a $1,473,362.74 debt because of two confessions of judgments from construction loans.
Since the the above transfer happened just two weeks before the valuation hearing, the Appellate Division found it “replete with badges of fraud“. The Appellate Division further stated that the Delaware corporation had been created only two days before the residence was transferred to it and that the corporation had operated from the very same address as the husband’s other businesses. According to the Appellate Division, the husband’s residential transfer and construction loans also violated New York Debtor and Creditor Law because they had occurred without any monies ever being paid, (i.e. without “fair consideration”).
In Allan J. Bentkofsky, Trustee v. Ralph J. Malandra, et. al., United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D.N.Y., Adv. Pro. No. 00-80221, the Court also found there were badges of fraud when a husband and wife transferred their residence to their children. Despite the transfer, the husband and wife continued to live at the residence because they had retained a life estate interest. Since the couple had filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy Court analyzed the residential transfer only to discover that it had occurred without any payment of money/was without “fair consideration”. The couple had also made the transfer at a time they had been insolvent. Given these facts, the Court found there were badges of fraud and set aside the transfer as it violated New York Debtor and Creditor Law.
Finally, badges of fraud can sometimes be used in debt collection, divorce, or bankruptcy cases to demonstrate that an opposing party has hidden assets or removed property with “actual intent” to defraud. Robert M. Morgenthau v. A.J. Travis Ltd., 708 N.Y.S.2d 827, 842 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000); Wall Street Associates, 257 A.D.2d at 529. The badges can also become important in court because a concurrence of several badges always makes a strong case for fraud. Gafco Inc. v. H.D.S. Mercantile, 47 Misc. 2d 661, 665 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1965).
(Last edited October 12, 2011)
Copyright 2007-2011 Fred L. Abrams