(a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, if the creditor's claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred and if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation: (1) With actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or (2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor (A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction, or (B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he would incur, debts beyond his ability to pay as they became due.

(b) In determining actual intent under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section, consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether: (1) The transfer or obligation was to an insider, (2) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer, (3) the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed, (4) before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit, (5) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor's assets, (6) the debtor absconded, (7) the debtor removed or concealed assets, (8) the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation incurred, (9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, (10) the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred, and (11) the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

(P.A. 91-297, S. 5.)

Cited. 46 CA 199; Id., 399. Determination of question of fraudulent intent is clearly an issue of fact which must often be inferred from surrounding circumstances. 54 CA 481. There is no requirement under section for a fraudulent intent with respect to transferees; where there was evidence for jury to conclude that defendant transferred his interest with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud estate, the granting of directed verdict was improper; section adopts and clarifies common law of fraudulent conveyances, but is not a wholesale codification. 138 CA 695.

Subsec. (a):

Distribution of marital property constitutes a transfer under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, regardless of whether distribution occurred as part of a settlement or after a trial. 304 C. 546.

Subsec. (b):

Plaintiff's claim under act is challenge to transfer of assets, not collateral attack on dissolution decree, plaintiff having been denied intervention in dissolution proceeding was a stranger to the previous litigation and thus falls under exception to rule against collateral attacks. 304 C. 546.