Article On Refinements To The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

Gary A. Foster & Eric C. Boughman (Forster Boughman & Lefkowitz) recently published an article entitled, The Uniform Voidable Transactions Act: An Overview of Refinements to the uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, 29 Probate & Property 4 (July/August 2015). Provided below is an excerpt from the article:

The most noticeable change made in the UVTA is the absence of the word “fraudulent” from the title and body of the act. In the UFTA, “fraudulent” and “voidable” are used inconsistently to refer to transactions for which the act provided a remedy. UVTA replaces “fraudulent” with “voidable” to clear up the inconsistency. Another purpose of the change is to discourage the “oxymoronic usage” of the phrase “constructive fraud” and the misleading phrase “actual fraud.” UVTA § 14, cmt. 1. The use of these phrases perpetuates the confusion and inconsistent application of the act among the courts. The prior language is also inappropriate because “constructive fraud” is confusing, and what is deemed actual fraud (under UVTA § 4(a)(1)), does not actually require proof of fraudulent intent.