242.05 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors.
(1) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.
(2) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made if the transfer was made to an insider for an antecedent debt, the debtor was insolvent at that time and the insider had reasonable cause to believe that the debtor was insolvent.
History: 1987 a. 192.
Unlike other provisions of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act governing transfers made with fraudulent intent, this section deems certain transactions constructively fraudulent based on the circumstances of the transfer. Proving fraudulent intent is not necessary under this section. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
Sub. (2) addresses “preferential transfers," a novel category of fraudulent transaction based on bankruptcy principles that attacks a transfer by an insolvent debtor to pay an antecedent debt to a preferred insider. The provision is aimed at diminishing the sometimes unfair advantages insiders possess when they are familiar with the debtor's financial status. A person attacking a transfer under sub. (2) must show that the debtor is improperly preferring insider creditors over others. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
The evidence in this case was insufficient to prove a fraudulent transfer under sub. (2) because no evidence was introduced showing that the allegedly fraudulent transfers were made to satisfy an antecedent debt. The fact of a transfer to an insider is not enough; it is the preferential payment of prior debts to insiders to which sub. (2) is addressed. Beck v. BidRX, LLC, 2018 WI App 61, 384 Wis. 2d 207, 918 N.W.2d 96, 17-2043.
Intent to defraud need not be proved under this section. DeWitt, Porter v. Kovalic, 991 F.2d 1243 (1993).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.