Daily Development for Thursday, April 13, 2006
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES; PROCEDURE; PROOF OF INTENT: Plaintiff alleging fraudulent conveyance in federal court under Georgia version of Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act is not required to allege fraudulent act with “particularity” despite requirement of Section 9b of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any allegation of fraud be made with such particulairty.
NESCO, Inc. v. CISCO, 2005 WL 29493353 (S.D. Ga. 10/7/05)
Section 9(b) of the Federal Rules states that “In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
In the instant case, plaintiff, arguing a case in which Georgia law applied, alleged that during the pendency of a lawsuit (ultimately successful) to establish a breach of contract claim against defendant, defendant gave a mortgage to another party that rendered defendant essentially insolvent, and that defendant did not receive “reasonably equivalent value” for such mortgage.
The plaintiff argued that the mortgage transaction evidenced the “badges of fraud” that are listed in the Georgia version of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act” OCGA Sec. 18-2-74(b) states that, in determining whether there was actual intent to defraud under the Act, consideration may be given (inter alia) to: whether the transfer was made at a time when a debtor was threatened with a lawsuit; whether the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets and whether the transfer occurred just before a substantial debt was incurred. Of course, all of these facts were true in this case. The Plaintiff also argued (and the court appeared to accept) that it was a “badge of fraud” that the debtor continued to have control over the asset after the transfer. The Plaintiff had included a reference to the precise mortgage, with recording information.
The court noted that the question of whether more particularity as to when and where the defendant had performed a fraudulent act in connection with a Uniform Act fraudulent transfer claim is a question about which federal circuits to not agree, although the question was one of first impression in the 5th Circuit, although the Seventh Circuit has applied the federal rule in such cases and federal district courts have not done so in Delaware and New York (as to constructive, rather than actual fraud).
The court noted here that the plaintiff had been vague about whether it was alleging actual or constructive fraud, and required plaintiff to replead to clarify this issue. Nevertheless, it appeared to agree with plaintiff that no greater “particularity” was required than an allegation that pleaded certain facts that corresponded to “badges of fraud” under the Uniform Act.
Comment: Although a trial court decision, the editor felt that the decision was noteworthy, because it was one of first impression, because other Circuit courts have disagreed, and most importantly because it appears to be correct, at least in the context of the transaction involved here. The Uniform Act, it appears, can reach a conclusion of intent to avoid creditors from circumstantial evidence such as that set forth above. Whether or not such intent is clearly “fraud” seems incidental to the purposes or language of the Act.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
or send an email message to the address firstname.lastname@example.org,
with the text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to email@example.com.