Creditors and Debtors

Granite Credit Union v. Remick, 2006 UT App 115

Remick got a loan from Granite secured by a 1997 Plymouth Voyager. When the loan became delinquent, Granite tried to repossess it. Before Granite could find the van, Remick had his towing company impound the van. He then sent Granite a bill for $1682 for towing costs and storage.

Granite ultimately prevailed on a summary judgment motion becuase Remick failed to comply with Utah Code Ann. § 72-9-603 (Supp. 2005).

*************************************************************************************

Tolle v. Fenley, 2006 UT App 78

This case should be a made for TV movie on Lifetime.

Robert Tolle molested his daughter, Jeanne, during her childhood and adolescence. When she was fifteen, he left and disappeared for 28 years. In 2001, Jeanne located her father and took steps to put him in prison and seize all his property. She told her father and several of his friends and associates about her intentions. He tried to foil her plans by quitclaiming his property to his friends. Jeanne obtained a default judgment against her father in Florida and then sued the people to whom her father had quitclaimed his property. She asserted that under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA) the transfers should be voided. The trial court ruled that the transfers were fraudulent under UFTA and voided them. The defendant's appealed.

The court of appeals considered three questions: (1) whether the daughter was creditor with a claim to the transferred properties when, at the time of the transfer, she had not yet obtained a judgment or even filed a complaint; (2) whether her father had actual intent to fraudulently transfer the property under UFTA; and (3) whether her father was insolvent under UFTA?

The court said yes to all three questions. The court broadly construed the words creditor and claim in UFTA. It held that the plaintiff became a creditor and had a claim when she told her father and his friends about her plans to sue him and take everything he had.

Judge Thorne dissented. He argued that the defendant's should be able to collaterally attack the Florida judgment, which was allegedly obtained by collusion with the plaintiff's half-sister and after the statute of limitations had run.