Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

If it helps:
"The statute of limitations for an action for relief from a transfer
proscribed under section 3439.04, subdivision (a) (transfer made with intent
to defraud creditor), is four years after the transfer or, if later, one
year after the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered by the
claimant, up to a maximum of seven years after the transfer"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

If it helps:
"The statute of limitations for an action for relief from a transfer
proscribed under section 3439.04, subdivision (a) (transfer made with intent
to defraud creditor), is four years after the transfer or, if later, one
year after the transfer was or could reasonably have been discovered by the
claimant, up to a maximum of seven years after the transfer"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Maybe. In the codes, a recent case says 7 years is the outer most time.
Also, laches is still a defense (along with any other relevant ones).
Carolyn
To:
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 5:21 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Re: Business Proceeds
> I have a case now where the trustee is going back 6 years. I wonder
> if he can use the portion of 3439.09 which states "or 1 year after
> discovery (paraphrasing)"?
>
>
>
>
> --- In cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com, SLBLAW1@a... wrote:
> > Hi. With no evidence of the loan, I would be careful about a
> trustee using
> > Sec 544 to pursue a fradulent claim. The trustee can go back 4
> years. See CA
> > CC 3439.09.
> >
> >
>
> > Steven L. Bryson
> >
>
> > Certified Specialist
> >
>
> > Personal & Small Business
> >
>
> > Bankruptcy Law
> >
>
> > (310) 477-4555
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

> I have a case now where the trustee is going back 6
> years.
The statute has three components:
1 a regular 4 year statute
2 the 4 years doesn't start until a judgement is
reached against the person making the fraudulent
transfer; and
3 there is an absolute cap of seven years.
dennis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I have a case now where the trustee is going back 6 years. I wonder
if he can use the portion of 3439.09 which states "or 1 year after
discovery (paraphrasing)"?
> Hi. With no evidence of the loan, I would be careful about a
trustee using
> Sec 544 to pursue a fradulent claim. The trustee can go back 4
years. See CA
> CC 3439.09.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi. With no evidence of the loan, I would be careful about a trustee using
Sec 544 to pursue a fradulent claim. The trustee can go back 4 years. See CA
CC 3439.09.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi All, Mark Kim sent out an issue and I just wanted to follow up to
see whether I
am missing something.
Issue: H & W owned a business that was sold on Sept.
27, 2004 for $300K. Of the $300K, approximately $130K was disbursed
to four
family members who H & W claim loaned them the money to start the
business. They don't have any evidence of the loan. After deducting
all other
debts, H & W were left with a little over $3K. They still have over
$50k in other
debts from the business that were not paid when the business was
sold.
My first question is will the Trustee have any way to avoid the
transfer as a
preference transfer if H and W file BK after September 27, 2005? My
review of the
red-lined code is that Trustee can only avoid a preference transfer
to an insider
if the transfer took place between 90 days and 1 year prior to the
filing of BK. It
does not appear to me that anything in the reform legislation changes
this
analysis but I would like to know if anyone has a difference of
opinion. I saw one
response to Mark's question saying something about preference to
insiders
changing to two years, but I could not find the reference anywhere in
the red-
lined code. Thanks in advance for any responses!

The post was migrated from Yahoo.