DocketNumber: No. CV97 0160139 S
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 6650
Judges: HICKEY, J.
Filed Date: 5/21/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant, Marti Miles, has filed a motion for summary judgment based on three grounds: 1) that the one year statute of limitation, General Statutes §
"Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. . . ." Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership,
The defendant's first ground for the motion is without merit. "The UFTA sets forth three limitation periods in [General Statutes] §
In the present case, the plaintiff alleges that the fraudulent transfer was made "with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the plaintiff[.]" The applicable limitation period, therefore, is four years, pursuant to General Statutes §
The defendant's remaining grounds for the motion are also without merit. "A conveyance is fraudulent if it is made with actual intent to avoid any debt or duty or if made without any substantial consideration by a person who is or will be thereby rendered insolvent. . . . The determination as to whether a conveyance has been made with fraudulent intent is a question of fact." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)Heise Industries, Inc. v. Lerman Container,
In the present case, the conveyance of which the plaintiff complains was the foreclosure. Absent authority to the contrary, if the defendant Ward allowed his property to be foreclosed with the intent to avoid his debt to the plaintiff, the conveyance can be labeled fraudulent. Whether the requisite intent existed is a genuine issue of material fact.
The defendant also argues that there was no equity in the property, therefore it cannot be labeled "an asset" for purposes of the UFTA. The defendant makes this assertion without citation. Nevertheless, there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the value of the property. Therefore, the court need not address this ground any further.
Based on the above discussion, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
So Ordered.
Dated at Stamford, Connecticut, this 21st day of May, 1998.
HICKEY, J.