NRP LLC I v. Elo Mgt. LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that CUFTA encompasses claims for constructive fraudulent transfer
• positing that Defendants and their designees received $1,394,729 in distributions between 2012 and 2015
• noting that the term “transfer” could 19 “hardly be defined more broadly”
• applying agency principles and holding that “CUFTA’s requirement that the fraudulent transfer be ‘made by the debtor’ encompasses a transfer made by a debtor’s attorney-in-fact”
• stating that, where an unjust enrichment claim is based on a benefit received by a third party rather than from a plaintiff, the plaintiff must show that it “has ‘a better legal or equitable right’ to the disputed benefit than the Defendant”
• clarifying “that the CUFTA claim in this appeal does not allege that the defendant/agent is personally liable on the claim (i.e., the debt for [his mother’s] nursing home services) and hence legally is the debtor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).