Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Hanson

Washington Supreme Court

Decided October 22, 2009No. 81311-6PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtOwens, J.

¶1 Under Washington’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), chapter 19.40 RCW, creditors *742have a cause of action against transferees who received fraudulently conveyed property of debtors. We accepted review of the instant case to resolve a split between Divisions One and Three of the Court of Appeals regarding the mental state required to sustain an action against a transferee under the UFTA. Division Three has held that a creditor must demonstrate intent on the part of the transferee. Division One, in accord with most other courts examining the issue, held that the plain language of the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. Scholes v. LehmannCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
  3. Warfield v. ByronCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2006
  4. State v. NeherWashington Supreme Court · 1989
  5. Philippides v. BernardWashington Supreme Court · 2004

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Rountree v. Nunnery (In Re Rountree)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · 2011
  2. Gatx Corp. v. AddingtonDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2012
  3. Henry Grisby Iii, Resp. v. Robert Herzog, Apps.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  4. DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaft Bank v. MeyerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
  5. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API