Legal Opinion

Wyzard v. Goller

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 25, 1994No. B067439PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

EPSTEIN, Acting P. J.

In this case we hold that an encumbrance by a debtor to an attorney, made for value in the form of an antecedent obligation for legal services, is not fraudulent as to another creditor, under applicable provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Civ. Code, § 3439 et seq.; the Act), and that this is true even though the transfer was a preference that resulted in the debtor being unable to satisfy debts of other creditors.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Kenneth A. Wyzard appeals from a judgment in favor of Nathan Goller, an attorney. The judgment was rendered…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Leal v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for Unification of World ChristianityCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Boston Trading Group, Inc. v. Robert A. Burnazos, Boston Trading Group, Inc. v. Robert A. BurnazosCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
  4. McGee v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Reddy v. GonzalezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lyons v. Security Pacific National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
  2. Annod Corp. v. Hamilton & SamuelsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Flores v. Emerich & FikeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2006
  4. Gutierrez v. GivensDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1998
  5. Mussetter v. LykeDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1998

4 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