Wolkowitz v. Beverly (In Re Beverly)

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the focus is on the transferor, i.e. WDE, with regard to the “intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor”
• holding that Stern does not apply if the assets were moved from entirely non- exempt to exempt assets
• finding large claims and overtones of overreaching where the debtor’s exemption planning included the conversion of nearly $424,450, in a prolonged effort to avoid paying one particular creditor
• characterizing as a transfer, in the context of § 544, a transaction in which one spouse received, pursuant to a dissolution settlement agreement, more than she otherwise would have in a judicial division
• whether a transfer is avoidable under California’s UVTA “is a question purely of California law”
• “Since 23 direct evidence of intent to hinder, delay or defraud is 24 uncommon, the determination typically is made inferentially from 25 circumstances consistent with the requisite intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).