![]() 4 th 75, 80 (2001) (“ Mehrtash”) for the proposition that actual injury must be shown. The Sarkisians relied on the California model jury instruction and Mehrtash v. Following discovery, the Sarkisians filed another motion for summary judgment, contending that actual intent claims under the UVTA required a finding of “actual injury” and that the trustee could not establish actual injury. In deciding cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court held that the transmutation agreement was a “transfer” under the UVTA but otherwise denied the motions. The Trustee then filed an adversary proceeding to avoid the transmutation agreement and recover the properties transferred by it as an actual intent fraudulent transfer pursuant to the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”), California Civil Code § 3439.04(a). During the second judgment debtor examination, the Trustee learned of the transmutation agreement. One month later, Sarkisian and his wife entered into the transmutation agreement. During the first examination, Sarkisian testified that he did not have a pre or post-marital agreement with his wife. The Trustee conducted two judgment debtor examinations. Following the appeal, a judgment was entered against Sarkisian for approximately $1.7 million, and against Medina for $200,000. ![]() While the appeal was pending, Sarkisian and his wife entered into a transmutation agreement for each to obtain a 50% interest in their property as their separate property. The bankruptcy case was converted to chapter 7 and the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) pursued the action as a judgment creditor. Medina obtained a partial judgment against Sarkisian for $1.4 million Sarkisian appealed the judgment. Rudolph Medina (“Medina”) filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and, during the bankruptcy case, litigated an action against John Sarkisian (“Sarkisian”). The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held in a published opinion that the claims for actual intent fraudulent transfers under the California Uniform Voidable Transactions Act do not require a plaintiff to prove harm or actual damages. Weber, a partner at Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP, analyzing a recent decision of interest: ![]() The following is a case update written by Corey R.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |