Bush Library

[Stallion]

If Vodricka files bankruptcy and fails to list his wink-and a nod gift of the bankruptcy estate's asset (the condominium unit) to this third party then that could potentially be a fraudulent transfer and fraudulent statement made under verification which carries the threat of perjury.

[SMU Football Blog]

Stallion, you are right; a friend of mine and I were talking about that very thing last night. In fact, the transfer is actually a state law fraudulent transfer under the uniform fraudulent transfer act right now (it is in the business and commerce code, chapter 28 I think). But you would have to get a present creditor to file the suit; I am not sure that SMU qualifies as a present creditor under state law. It seems to me that if Vodicka filed, SMU could file a fraudulent transfer action in bankruptcy court to recover the transfer for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate.

[EastStang]

Now all we need is for someone to buy some paper that he made. Anybody got a few thousand to buy his mortgage? In fact are due on transfer clauses legal in Texas? If so, I'd bet the bank has one of those in his mortgage. They could foreclose, then he would declare bankrupty....

[SMU Football Blog]

That is a very good point, assuming he mortgaged the condominium units. That transfer does trigger the due on sale clause in a conforming deed of trust. Whether or not he mortgaged the property depends on when he bought the condominium units. No lender would have knowingly made the loan to buy a unit in a condo complex that was being bought out. Upon further reflection, the due on sale clause was probably triggered when SMU closed on the sale of the complex and put the money in escrow. Of course, a mortgage servicer would never know to check it out unless the loan was in default ...or if Vodicka filed for bankruptcy.

SMU could buy the notes and foreclose. Probably cost more money than it would be worth, though. You are also entering the realm of "really squirrely deal" here, which makes you look bad. I once had a case where the opposing party claimed he was the legal tenant of a building, beneficiary under a deed of trust secured by the building and the land on which the building sat and ground lessor of the same land; he then purported to terminate the ground lease and take ownership of the building. Squirrely deal; the guy was an a-hole and his lawyers were jack@sses.

[Stallion]

there is also a federal bankruptcy statute on fraudulent transfers although I think the "window" period is much shorter. In Bankruptcy Court, the more likely scenario would likely be that the U.S. Trustee who presides over the estate proceeding would file an Adversary Proceeding to void the fraudulent transfer based upon fraud of all creditor. A creditor could also file the Adversay Proceeding. But of course, we are talking about an aasset that may not exist since SMU claims he has not rights in the property. But he can't have it both ways.

[SMU Football Blog]

there is also a federal bankruptcy statute on fraudulent transfers although I think the "window" period is much shorter. In Bankruptcy Court, the more likely scenario would likely be that the U.S. Trustee who presides over the estate proceeding would file an Adversary Proceeding to void the fraudulent transfer based upon fraud of all creditor. A creditor could also file the Adversay Proceeding. But of course, we are talking about an aasset that may not exist since SMU claims he has not rights in the property. But he can't have it both ways.

The reachback period in BK is 90 days for a preference, which this is not. It is 1 year for a fraudulent transfer under the BK Code 548 pre-BAPCPA; 2 years post-BAPCPA, like this case. Under state law UFTA, it is 4 years. And recall that under 11 USC 544 the trustee takes the claims of creditors under state law, so a hypothetical BK trustee could bring a claim under 544 and the UFTA for a transfer that occurred up to 4 years before the BK case was filed.

I used to do trustee work.

[OC Mustang]

Is any of this relevant to the rest of us, or are you arguing the finer points of law to show off? If the former, counselors, please use plain layman's english to explain, or if the latter, who won?

Bob Dedman once told me the only thing better than being an attorney was being able to hire as many as you want and boss them around.

Now, if I didn't understand before, I now truly understand why.

[Stallion]

...fine. Where do I send my bill?

[SMU Football Blog]

Yes, this is just a ridiculous argument. However, I won.

[jtstang]

Is any of this relevant to the rest of us, or are you arguing the finer points of law to show off? If the former, counselors, please use plain layman's english to explain, or if the latter, who won?

Bob Dedman once told me the only thing better than being an attorney was being able to hire as many as you want and boss them around.

Now, if I didn't understand before, I now truly understand why.

You're sounding a bit envious of the profession, as if you've just come to the realization that nothing ever happens in the world where the lawyers don't make money. Surely you've known this most basic of all truths all along?

[mrydel]

I total honesty, I am interested and I have enjoyed the commentary. Please keep us advised as to the proceedings.

[SMU Football Blog]

First rule of bankruptcy law: The lawyers get paid before everybdoy else.

[mrydel]

First rule of bankruptcy law: The lawyers get paid before everybdoy else.

And the Trustee 2nd. I see it everyday in banking.

[OC Mustang]

JStang wrote:
[quote]
You're sounding a bit envious of the profession, as if you've just come to the realization that nothing ever happens in the world where the lawyers don't make money. Surely you've known this most basic of all truths all along?
[quote]

I am envious. And it kills me that I didn't do it. But that is more about me and my personal regrets than anybody here needs to know.

[Hoofprint]

I don't understand all of this, either, but I'm finding it very educational and surprisingly interesting reading.