Daneman v. Stanley (In Re Stanley)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that under Ohio’s UFTA, “‘[a]ctual intent’ may be present whether the transfer was motivated entirely or merely in part by a desire to hinder, delay or defraud creditors”
• declining to apply retrojection analysis to debtor's solvency given nearly two-year gap between date of alleged fraudulent transfer and petition date
• finding retrojection analysis inapplicable to a nearly two-year gap between the transfer and petition date
• “The refurbishing of the house never occurred, and therefore does not constitute value.”
• two-year gap between date of alleged fraudulent transfer and petition date
• nearly two year gap too long

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).