Backman v. Backman
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EUBANK, Judge.
The main issue raised by appellants is whether the trial court erred in holding that the statute of limitations, A.R.S. § 12-543(3), did not bar appellee’s action to set aside the appellants’ conveyance of real property as a fraudulent conveyance, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 44-1007 and 44-1009.1
*416The .fraudulent conveyance issue was tried to the court without a jury. No request was made by the parties to the court for findings of fact and conclusions of law and none were made. Therefore, all inferences to be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the judgment. The…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Valley Bank v. MalcolmArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- Visco v. Universal Refuse Removal CompanyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
- Greco v. PullaraSupreme Court of Colorado · 1968
- Hanrahan v. SimsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1973
- Hartman v. HartmanTexas Supreme Court · 1940
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. PankratzCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2000
- Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
- Ghb v. SolomonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2020
- Kaufmann v. M & S Unlimited, L.L.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005