A Primer on the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

By Henry S. David and Dana J. Meepos

Henry S. David is the proprietor of The David Firm®, which he founded after 33 years in Big Law. He is a commercial litigator, with a focus on creditors’ rights.

Dana Meepos is an associate at The David Firm®. Her practice focuses on contract disputes, post-judgment remedies and commercial litigation. She received her undergraduate degree in English and Medieval Studies from Cornell University and her law degree from UCLA School of Law, where she served on the Women’s Law Journal.

A client comes to you with a substantial claim, with clear liability, maybe even already reduced to judgment. But when you investigate the debtor and his ability to pay, you find out that although he once owned substantial assets, he appears no longer to have them—or even the proceeds from their sale. What are you to do? There are a number of legal theories to pursue third parties to collect on a debt or a judgment, such as alter ego or piercing the corporate veil,¹ successor liability,² aiding and abetting a tort,³ and conspiring to commit a tort.⁴ In this Article, we set forth the basics of claims under California’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the "CUFTA").⁵