Essen v. Gilmore

How courts have described this case

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

• “Because a beneficiary who has renounced his or her interest in property does not have and, pursuant to the relation-back doctrine, has not acquired rights in the asset renounced, he or she cannot ‘transfer’ the property within the meaning of the UFTA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).