Schnidt v. HSC, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that one-year period commences on date of discovery of the fraudulent nature of the transfer
• holding that the one- 17 year period begins when a plaintiff discovers the fraudulent nature of the potential transfer
• concluding that statutes should be construed to avoid “an absurd and unjust result obviously inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute”
• anticipating that California courts would apply the discovery-of-the-fraud rule
• “the obvious purpose of the UFTA is to prevent fraud and to provide a remedy to those who are victims of fraudulent transfers”
• “the 21 obvious purpose of the UFTA is to prevent fraud and to provide a 22 remedy to those who are victims of fraudulent transfers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).