### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Au gus t 19, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 14051

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 02 -031 88 -C V -C C -1 C H E P S T O W L I M I T E D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M A R S H A L L B . H U N T , M A R T H A H U N T , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 19, 2004) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

Ch e p s t o w Lt d . f

i l e d a l a w s u i ti n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta l l e g i n g th a tM a r s h a l l B. H u n t h a d f

r a u d u le n tly tr a n s f

e rr e d m illio n s o f

d o lla r s o f

h is a s s e ts in o r d e rto a v o id pa y m e nton a pr i orj udgm e nthe l d by C he ps t ow a ga i ns thi m . T he c om pl a i nt al l eged thatH un t , w i th som e a ss i st ance fr om a G eorgi a c om pany of w hi ch he w as C E O , tr a ns f

e rr e d a l a r ge por t i on of

hi s a s s e t s t o hi s w i f

e , c hi l dr e n, a nd a f

r i e nd – a l l of w hom a r e a l s o de f

e nda nt s i n the c a s e – i n vi ol a t i on of G e or gi a ’ s f

r a udul e nt tra nsfe r s t atut es , G a. C od e A nn . § 1 8-2-22 (r epea l ed Jul y 1, 20 02 ) a nd the U ni form F raud ul entT ra nsfe r A ct , § 1 8-2-70 , etse q. (e ff ec t i ve Jul y 1, 20 02 ). T he di stri ct c our tgr a nt e d the de f

e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons t o di s m i s s f orf a i l ur e t o s t a t e a c l a i m a nd e n te r e d f in a l ju d g m e n t a g a in s t C h e p s to w . T h is is C h e p s to w ’s ap p e a l. I . I n a p r e v io u s a c tio n f

ile d in F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 1 , C h e p s to w ’s p r e d e c e s s o rin i n t erest , T ap i r L t d . , b ro u g h ta b reach o f co n tractact i o n i n th e d i stri ctco u rtag ai n st H u n t in o r d e rto c o lle c t o n a p a s t- d u e p r o m is s o ry n o te . D ur i ng the pe nde nc y of tha ta c t i on – s om e t i m e be tw e e n F e brua ry 2001 a nd M a y 2002 – C he ps t ow a c q u ir e d a ll o f

T ap ir ’s r ig h ts in th e a c tio n a n d w a s s u b s titu te d a s th e p la in tif f . In M a y 2002, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d s um m a ry j udgm e nti n f a vorof C he ps t ow , a nd e nt e r e d f i na l j udgm e nta l ong w i th a w r i tof e xe c ut i on a ga i ns tH unti n the a m ount o f $ 9 ,2 8 1 ,1 3 1 .0 2 . H un tdi d n otappeal . D es pi t e C hepst ow ’ s bes tef fort s a t3

c ol l e c t i on, i t s j udgm e nta ga i ns thi m r e m a i ns uns a t i s f i e d i n a n a m ounte xc e e di ng $8 m i l l i on. I n N ove m be r2002, C he ps t ow f i l e d a c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng tha tH unt , w i th the know l e dge a nd a s s i s t a nc e of the othe rna m e d de f

e nda nt s , e nga ge d i n num e r ous f r a u d u le n t tr a n s f

e r s o f h is a s s e ts in o r d e rto d e f e a t C h e p s to w ’s e f

f o r ts to c o lle c t its ju d g m e n t. C o u n t 1 o f

th e c o m p la in t a lle g e d th a t H u n t h a d tr a n s f e rr e d a s s e ts to h is w i f e , M a r tha H unt ; t o hi s c hi l dr e n, M a r s ha l l B l a i rH unt , J r . , C a l vi n H unt , H a s t i ngs H unt , P a ul H unt , a nd M a ry H unt ; t o a G e or gi a l i m i t e d pa r tne r s hi p of w hi c h H unt a n d h is w if

e a r e g e n e r a l p a r tn e r s , H u n t F a m ily I n v e s tm e n ts , L .L .L .P . ( H F I ) ; a n d to H un t ’ s busi ness as soci at e a nd fr i end W i l l i am E . P et er son, al l i n v i ol at i on of G a. C od e A nn . § 1 8-2-22 and the U F T A . C ou nt1 al so al l eged thatH ori zon M edi ca l P r oduc t s , I nc . ( H or i z on) , a publ i c c om pa ny of w hi c h H unti s C E O a nd i n w hi c h he ow ne d m or e tha n 20% of a l l out s t a ndi ng s ha r e s , a i de d a nd abe tt e d H unti n m a ki ng s o m e o f th e f r a u d u le n t tr a n s f

e r s . In C ou nt2 o f the com pl ai nt , C hepst ow al l eged tha tH unt , M a r tha , H F I , P e t e r s on, a nd H or i z on c ons pi r e d t o de f r a ud C he ps t ow a nd t o hi nde ra nd de l a y C he ps t ow ’ s c ol l e c t i on of i t s out s t a ndi ng j udgm e nta ga i ns tH unt th r o u g h th e tr a n s f

e r s . T he c om pl a i nts pe c i f

i c a l l y a l l e ge d tha tH untf r a udul e nt l y tr a ns f

e rr e d the f o llo w in g p r o p e r ty : ( 1 ) a ll o f h is r ig h t, title , a n d in te r e s t in h is h o m e v a lu e d a t $ 3 .54

m illio n to h is w if

e , M a r th a ; ( 2 ) h u n d r e d s o f th o u s a n d s o f

d o lla r s in a s s e ts to M a r tha a nd hi s c hi l dr e n; ( 3) 225, 000 s ha r e s of hi s s t oc k i n H or i z on t o H F I ; a nd, ( 4) a s s e ts in a b a n k a c c o u n t jo in tly h e ld b y b o th H u n t a n d P e te r s o n to a n a c c o u n t h e ld s o le ly b y P e te r s o n . T he defendant s f

i l ed m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss for f ai l ure t o st at e acl ai m on w hi ch re l i ef coul d b e gra nt ed. T hey a ss ert ed thatC hepst ow ’ s c om pl ai ntfa i l ed t o st at e a cl ai m un der G a. C od e A nn . § 1 8-2-22 , because thatcode se ct i on had b ee n re peal ed w i tho utre se rvat i on by the U ni form F raud ul entT ra nsfe r A ct(U F T A ), G a. C o d e A n n . § 1 8 -2 -7 0 , et seq . T h e d ef en d an ts fu rth eras se rted th at C h ep sto w ’s c om pl a i ntf

a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m ba s e d on the U F T A be c a us e the c om pl a i ntdi d not a l l e ge a ny f

r a udul e nttr a ns f

e r s oc c urr i ng a f

t e rthe J ul y 1, 2002 e f

f e c t i ve da t e of

the U F T A . T he di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de rdi s m i s s i ng C ount1 of the c om pl a i nton the gr ound tha tthe e na c tm e ntof the U F T A w i thouta s a vi ngs c l a us e pr e s e r vi ng § 18- 2- 22 notonl y r e pe a l e d tha tpr ovi s i on i ns of a ra s f utur e e ve nt s w e r e c onc e rne d, but a l s o c utof

f a l l pe ndi ng c l a i m s br oughtunde ri t . T he di s tr i c tc our trul e d i n the al t ernat i ve thateven i f § 18 -2-22 w er e notre peal ed by the U F T A , C hepst ow had fai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m ag ai n stH o ri zo n i n C o u n t1 . T h e co u rtreaso n ed th atb ecau se H ori zon w as nei ther adebt or no r atra nsfe re e, i tw as no tsubj ec tt o l i abi l i ty und er5

an ai der a nd abett or theory f or cl ai m s broug htpu rs uantt o § 18 -2-22, because that st atut e e xp l i ci t l y i m po se s l i abi l i ty onl y on d ebt ors a nd tra nsfe re es . T he di stri ct courtal so di sm i ss ed C hepst ow ’ s c on spi ra cy cl ai m s i n C ou nt2 b as ed on i t s bel i ef tha tthe unde r l y i ng C ount1 c l a i m s a l l e gi ng f r a udul e ntc onve y a nc e f a i l e d. H a vi ng throw n o utbo th cou nt s a gai nstal l of the defendant s, the di stri ctcourtent er ed fi nal ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g C h e p s to w ’s c o m p la in t. I I . W e rev i ew d e n o v o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er g ran t i n g th e d efen d an t s’ m o tio n s to d is m is s p u r s u a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c la im upon w hi c h r e l i e f

c a n be gr a nt e d. H a rpe rv. B l oc kbus t e rE ntm ’ tC orp. , 139 F . 3d 1385, 1387 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . I n doi ng s o, w e a c c e pta s true the f a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons i n the pl a i nt i f

f’ s c om pl a i nta nd c ons true the f a c t s i n the l i ghtm os tf

a vor abl e t o the p la in tif f a s th e n o n - m o v in g p a r ty . S p a in v . B r o w n & W illia m s o n T o b a c c o C o rp ., 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 3 , 1 1 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A m o tio n to d is m is s m a y b e g r a n te d o n ly w hen the defendantdem on stra t es “ beyond do ub tthatthe pl ai nt i ff ca n p rove no se t of f a c t s i n s uppor tof

hi s c l a i m w hi c h w oul d e nt i t l e hi m t o r e l i e f . ” H a rpe r , 139 F . 3d a t1387 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of s t a tut ory i nt e rpr e t a t i on de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D B B , I nc . , 180 F . 3d 1277, 1281 (11th C i r. 19 99 ).6

T hi s c a s e r e qui r e s us t o e xa m i ne i s s ue s c onc e rni ng the s ubs t a nt i ve l a w of G e or gi a . “ I n r e nde r i ng a de c i s i on ba s e d on s t a t e s ubs t a nt i ve l a w , [ w e ] m us tde c i de th e c as e th e w ay itap p ea rs th e s tate’s h ig h es t co u rt w o u ld . W h er e th e s tate’s hi ghe s tc our tha s nots poke n t o a n i s s ue , [ w e ] m us ta dhe r e t o the de c i s i ons of the s t a t e ’ s i nt e r m e di a t e appe l l a t e c our t s abs e nts om e pe r s ua s i ve i ndi c a t i on tha tthe s t a t e ’ s hi ghe s tc our tw oul d de c i de the i s s ue othe rw i s e . ” E rni e H a i r e F or d, I nc . v. F or d M ot orC o. , 260 F . 3d 1285, 1290 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a r ks a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I I I . W e f i r s ta ddr e s s the que s t i on of w he the rthe r e pe a l of

G a . C ode A nn. § 18- 2- 2 2 , w h ic h w a s e f

f e c te d th r o u g h th e e n a c tm e n t o f th e U F T A , r e tr o a c tiv e ly e xt i ngui s he d a l l pe ndi ng c l a i m s unde r§ 18- 2- 22. T he di s tr i c tc our tthoughts o, but w e th in k n o t. T he U ni form F raud ul entT ra nsfe r A ct(U F T A ), 20 02 G a. L aw s 141 , § 3 , as c odi f i e d a t§§ 18- 2- 70 t o 18- 2- 80, be c a m e pa r tof the G e or gi a c ode w he n the G o v e rn o rs ig n e d it in to la w o n A p r il 4 , 2 0 0 2 . I t b e c a m e e f f e c tiv e o n J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 2 . T he U F T A re peal ed and repl ac ed som e of the exi st i ng G eorgi a f raud ul enttra nsfe r prov i si on s thathad b ee n i n eff ec tbefore i t s e nactm ent . Im po rt ant l y f or thi s c as e, the U F T A re peal ed form er§ 1 8-2-22 , w hi ch defi ned the conv ey ance s by c re di t ors7

thatar e perse fr audu l ent . H ow ever , the U F T A l ef ti nt ac t§ 1 8-2-20 , w hi ch prov i des thatthe ri gh t s of c re di t ors a re fa vo re d i n the court s, and § 18 -2-21, w hi ch prov i des c re di t ors w i th the ri gh tt o att ac k j ud gm ent s or c on veya nces w hi ch in te r f e r e w ith th e irr ig h ts . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e a s one d tha ts i nc e the U F T A r e pe a l e d § 18- 2- 22 a nd c ont a i ne d no s a vi ngs c l a us e e xpl i c i t l y pr e s e r vi ng c a us e s of a c t i on tha tha d a l r e a dy a r is e n u n d e rth e n o w - r e p e a le d p r o v is io n , it e x tin g u is h e d th e m o n e a n d a ll. As a uthor i ty , the di s tr i c tc our tc i t e d F ul t on B a g & C ott on M i l l s v. W i l l i a m s , 95 S . E . 2d 848 ( G a . 1956) a nd G ol d v. P i one e rF und, I nc . , 132 S . E . 2d 144 ( G a . 1963) . T he c o u r t c ite d b o th o f

th o s e d e c is io n s f

o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t “th e r e p e a l o f a s ta tu te w i thoutr e s e r va t i on t a ke s a w a y a l l r e m e di e s gi ve n by i ta nd e ve n de f e a t s a l l a c t i ons an d p ro ceed i n g s p en d i n g u n d er i tatth e t i m e o f i t s rep eal , an d th i s i s esp eci al l y so w here the st atut e r epea l ed i s one cr ea t i ng a c ause of ac t i on . ” G ol d, 13 2 S . E . 2d at 1 4 8 .The UF TA, 2002 Ga . L aws 141, § 2, states that § 18-2-22, “is amended . . . by striking 1 Code Section[] 18-2-22, relatingto conveyance s by debtors deemed fra

udulent, . . . and inserting in lieu thereof

the following : ‘18-2-22. [striking through all of the languag e in former § 18-2- 22] Reserve d.’” N ew languag e used in the UFTA , which is now codifie d in §§ 18-2-75 &18-2-76, replaces that previously

found in § 18-2-22. A lso, the preamble to the UFTA included among thepurp os e s o f t

heAc t: “to re mov ec e rtain d up lic ateor

re dundant p ro vis ion s re latingto conveyance s by

debtors deemed fra

udulent,” and to “repe al conf licting law s.” And § 4 of the UFTA states that “[a]ll laws and parts of la ws in conflict with this Act arerepe aled.” 8 T he di s tr i c tc our tw a s c orr e c taboutthe U F T A r e pe a l i ng § 18- 2- 22. 1 H ow ever , w e do n otagre e w i th the di stri ctcourtthatthe re peal ext i ng ui shed c a u s e s o f a c tio n th a t h a d a r is e n u n d e rth e r e p e a le d s e c tio n b u t h a d n o t y e t m a d e it t o f i na l j udgm e nt . T ha ti s a que s t i on of s t a t e l a w , a nd the r e i s as tr ong l i ne of G e or gi a pr e c e de nte s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s t a t e c ons t i tut i on f orbi ds the r e s ul tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t r e a c h e d . A . A rt i cl e I , S ec t i on 1, para graph X of the G eorgi a C on st i tut i on prov i des that

“ [ n] o bi l l of

a tt a i nde r , e x pos tf

a c t o l a w , r e tr oa c t i ve l a w , orl a w s i m pa i r i ng the obl i ga t i on of

c ontr a c torm a ki ng i rr e voc abl e gr a ntof s pe c i a l pr i vi l e ge s or i m m uni t i e s s ha l l be pa s s e d. ” T ha tpr ovi s i on w a s c ons true d a nd appl i e d i n D enni ng t on v. M ay or of T ow n o f R ob ert a, 61 S . E . 20 (G a. 19 08 ). I n D e nni ngt on, a s t a tut e e na c t e d i n 1900 r e qui r e d the t ow n c ounc i l of R obe r t a t o l e vy a t a x f

orthe purpos e of

s uppor t i ng the publ i c s c hool s , i nc l udi ng t e a c he rs a l a r i e s , w he n the s c hool boa r d r e c om m e nde d tha ts uc h a t a x be l e vi e d. I d.9

a t21- 22. T he t ow n c ounc i l f a i l e d t o l e vy the ne c e s s a ry a d va l or e m t a x f orthe sch o o l year b eg i n n i n g i n 1 9 0 4 an d en d i n g i n th e su m m er o f 1 9 0 5 . Id . at2 1 . A s a r e s ul tof tha tf a i l ur e , a t e a c he re m pl oy e d by R obe r t a ’ s boa r d of s c hool com m i ss i on er s w as no tpai d for hi s s ervi ce s bec ause i nsuffi ci entfund s w er e a v a ilab le to d o s o . I d . I n 1 9 0 5 , th e G e o r g ia G e n e r a l A s s e m b ly r e p e a le d th e s ta tu te a uthor i z i ng the t a x l e vy , a nd the r e pe a l e ra c tdi d notc ont a i n a s a vi ngs c l a us e . I d. a t 2 1 . In a l aw sui tfi l ed by the t ea cherw ho had n otbeen pai d for hi s s ervi ce s dur i ng the 1904- 05 s c hool y e a r , the G e or gi a S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe r e pe a l of the t a xi ng s t a tut e c oul d notc ons t i tut i ona l l y be gi ve n r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c tt o de f e a tthe vest ed contra ctual ri gh tof the t ea cher . Id. at23 . In order t o avo i d an u n c o n s titu tio n a l r e s u lt, th e C o u r t c o n s tru e d th e r e p e a le rle g is la tio n to ap p ly prospect i vel y onl y. Id. at22 . T he abse nce of a s avi ng s c l ause w as no ta probl em f orthe C our tbe c a us e the ge ne r a l rul e i s tha tr e pe a l of a s t a tut e ha s no r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c t. I d . a t 2 1 . A s th e C o u r t e x p la in e d : T he r e i s a ge ne r a l s t a tut e i n f or c e i n thi s s t a t e ( P ol . C ode 1895, § 6) w hi c h de c l a r e s tha t“ l a w s pr e s c r i be onl y f orthe f utur e ; the y c a nnot i m pa i rthe obl i ga t i on of c ontr a c t s norge ne r a l l y ha ve a r e tr os pe c t i ve ope r a t i on, ” a nd w e m i ghtw e l l tr e a tthi s C ode s e c t i on a s the e qui va l e nt of a s a vi ng c l a us e tha ta r e pe a l i ng a c ts ha l l notbe gi ve n a r e tr os pe c t i ve ope r a t i on, s o a s t o de s tr oy ve s t e d r i ght s ori m pa i rthe o b lig a tio n o f

c o n tr a c ts .10

I d. a t21. I n othe rw or ds , the r e w a s a ge ne r a l s a vi ngs c l a us e i n the G e or gi a c ode thatw as appl i cabl e t o al l enac tm ent s, w hi ch m ade i tun nece ss ary f or the G ener al A ss em bl y t o i ncl ud e ase para t e s avi ng s c l ause i n every pi ec e of l egi sl at i on . T hat fr ee st andi ng sa vi ng s c l ause i s s t i l l st andi ng and st i l l has the sa m e e ff ec t . S ee G a. C ode A nn. § 1- 3- 5 ( 2004) ( c ont a i ni ng m a t e r i a l l y i de nt i c a l t e r m s t o P ol . C ode 1895, § 6 ). T h e De n n i n g t o n d e c i s i o n h a s a b i g i m p a c to n th e p r e s e n tc a s e f o rtwo r e a s ons . F i r s t , i te s t abl i s he s tha tw he r e a r i ghtha s ve s t e d thr ough the oc c urr e nc e of e ve nt s gi vi ng r i s e t o a c l a i m unde ra s t a tut e , the G e or gi a C ons t i tut i on f orbi ds the l egi sl ature f

rom snuffi ng ou tthatri gh tthrou gh the re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of a r e pe a l e rpr ovi s i on. S e c ond, i te s t abl i s he s tha ta s e pa r a t e s a vi ngs c l a us e i s not nece ss ary i n these ci rc um st ance s, because of the pres um pt i on expres se d i n a G eorgi a s t atut e of genera l appl i ca t i on thata r etroac t i ve ef fe cti s noti nt ended w here v e s te d r ig h ts a r e c o n c e rn e d . B o th o f th e s e p o in ts w e r e r e c o n f ir m e d in B a n k o f

N o r m a n P a r k v . C o lq u itt C ou nty, 15 0 S . E . 84 1 (G a. 19 29 ). C ol qu i ttC ou nty deposi t ed $1 1, 00 0 i n a bank at a t i m e w he n a G e or gi a s t a tut e ga ve a c ounty ’ s de pos i t s pr e c e de nc e f orr e pa y m e nt o v e ro th e rd e p o s ito r s in th e e v e n t th e b a n k b e c a m e in s o lv e n t. I d . a t 8 4 2 . S ub se qu entt o the depo si t , the st atut e w as re peal ed w i th n o i nd i ca t i on of w hetherTh ec ur rent v e rs ion

of thi s p ro vis ion , which ismateri ally identi c al tothat c ite d in 2 Norman Par

k, is found at ArticleI , Section 1, paragraph X , of the Ge org ia Constitut ion. 11 the r e pe a l w a s t o ha ve r e tr oa c t i ve e f f e c t . I d. T he ba nk the n f a i l e d. I d. I n a l aw sui tby the coun ty t o est abl i sh pri ori ty f or i t s c l ai m , the G eorgi a S up re m e C ou rt hel d thatthe coun ty had a ves t ed ri gh tun der the ol d st atut e, the re peal of w hi ch s h o u ld n o t b e g iv e n r e tr o a c tiv e e f f e c t: Th e s e tt l e d ru l e f

o rth e c o n s tru c t i o n o f

s t a tu t e s , i s n o tt o g i v e th e m a r e tr o s p e c tiv e o p e r a tio n , u n le s s th e la n g u a g e s o im p e r a tiv e ly r e q u ir e s . F ur the r m or e , a r e pe a l i ng a c tw i l l notbe gi ve n a r e tr oa c t i ve ope r a t i on, s o a s t o di ve s tpr e vi ous l y a c qui r e d r i ght s , ort o i m pa i rthe obl i ga t i on of a c ontr a c tl a w f

ul l y m a de by vi r tue of

a nd pe ndi ng the e xi s t e nc e of the l a w r e pe a l e d. P a r a gr aph 2 of s e c t i on 3 of

a r t i c l e 1 of

the C o n s titu tio n o f

th is s ta te d e c la r e s th a t “n o . . . r e tr o a c tiv e la w . . . s h a ll b e p a s s e d .” 2 I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n a n d s o m e in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . In the m ore r ec entca se of E ng erv. E rw i n, 26 7 S . E . 2d 25 (G a. 19 80 ), E ng er br oughts ui tf

ora l i e na t i on of

a f f e c t i ons pur s ua ntt o a G e or gi a s t a tut e . I d. a t25 (c i t i ng G a. C od e A nn . § 1 05 -120 3). W hi l e hi s s ui tw as pend i ng , the G ener al A s s e m bl y e na c t e d the F a m i l y a nd D om e s t i c R e l a t i ons L a w , 1979 G a . L a w s 466, w h ic h e n tir e ly s u p e r s e d e d th e s ta tu te u p o n w h ic h E n g e r ’s c la im w a s b a s e d . I d . N otonl y tha t , butthe ne w a c tabol i s he d the c a us e of a c t i on f ora l i e na t i on of a f f e c t i ons , a nd the a c te xpl i c i t l y pr ovi de d tha tthe abol i t i on w oul d appl y t o a ny future procee di ng s i n any pend i ng ca se s. Id. R el yi ng on thatprov i si on of the new12

ac t , the defendantm ov ed t o d i sm i ss the com pl ai nt . Id. T he tri al courtfoun d that r e tr o s p e c tiv e ap p lic a tio n o f th e n e w s ta tu te to c u t o f f c la im s b r o u g h t p u r s u a n t to th e p r e v io u s s ta tu te w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l, a n d it d e n ie d th e m o tio n to d is m is s . I d . T he de f e nda ntf i l e d a n i nt e r l oc ut ory appe a l t o the G e or gi a S upr e m e C our t . I d. T h e Ge o r g i a S u p r e m e C o u r ti n E n g e rc i t e d th e g e n e r a l ru l e th a t“ [ l ] a ws us ua l l y m a y notha ve r e tr os pe c t i ve appl i c a t i on. ” I d. ( c i t i ng G a . C ode A nn. § 1 0 2 - 1 0 4 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , w h ic h is c u rr e n tly c o d if ie d a t G a . C o d e A n n . § 1 - 3 - 5 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ) . T h e C o u r t h e ld th a t w h e n e v e n ts g iv in g r is e to a s u b s ta n tiv e c la im o c c u rp r io rto the re peal of the st atut e upo n w hi ch the cl ai m i s bas ed, the pl ai nt i ff has avest ed r i ght . I d. a t26. T he C our ta l s o he l d, a s i tha d i n the D e nni ngt on a nd B a nk of N o r m a n P a r k c a s e s , th a t v e s te d r ig h ts u n d e ra s ta tu te c a n n o t b e c o n s titu tio n a lly ext i ng ui shed throu gh the re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of a r epea l i ng st atut e: A c ons t i tut i ona l a c tof

the l e gi s l a tur e ha s be e n f ound t o be the e qui va l e ntof

a c ontr a c ta nd the r i ght s c r e a t e d the r e by m a y notbe i m pai re d b y s ub se qu entl egi sl at i on . A l tho ug h l egi sl at i on w hi ch in v o lv e s m e r e p r o c e d u r a l o re v id e n tia ry c h a n g e s m a y o p e r a te re trospec t i vel y, l egi sl at i on w hi ch af fe ct s s ub st ant i ve ri gh t s m ay o p e r a te p r o s p e c tiv e ly o n ly . Id. (i nt ernal ci t at i on om i tt ed). C on si st entw i th tho se pri nci pl es , the E ng ercourt h el d th atE n g er’ s “ ri g h tt o b ri n g an act i o n fo r al i en at i o n o f affecti o n s w as a s ubs t a nt i ve r i ghtw hi c h ha d ve s t e d a tthe t i m e of the r e pe a l of

thi s c a us e of

a c t i on by the G e ne r a l A s s e m bl y . T he r e f or e , the por t i on of

the [ s t a tut e ] w hi c h m a de the13

r e pe a l of the c a us e of

a c t i on f ora l i e na t i on of

a f f e c t i ons r e tr os pe c t i ve a s t o pe ndi ng a c t i ons [ w a s ] unc ons t i tut i ona l . ” I d. a t26; s e e a l s o B r ow n v. H a us e r , 292 S . E . 2d 1, 2 ( G a . 1 9 8 2 ) ( h o ld in g , a ls o in th e c o n te x t o f a n a lie n a tio n o f

a f f e c tio n s c la im , th a t a c a u s e o f a c tio n a c c ru e s , a n d th e r e f o r e b e c o m e s a v e s te d r ig h t, n o t w h e n a s u it is fi l ed bu tw hen the event s occ ur thatgi ve ri se t o the cause of a ct i on (c i t i ng E ng er , 2 6 7 S .E .2 d a t 2 5 ) ) . A n o th er case close to p o i n ti s M u l l i n s v . F i rstG en eral In su ran ce C o m p an y, 322 S . E . 2d 265 ( G a . 1984) . T he r e w a s a G e or gi a s t a tut e a uthor i z i ng the f i l i ng of P er sonal Inj ury P rot ec t i on (P IP ) c l ai m s i n exces s of the st at ed am ou ntof P IP c ove r a ge i n a n a ut om obi l e i ns ur a nc e pol i c y i f the i ns ur e rha d f

a i l e d t o i nf

or m the i ns ur e d of

the s t a tut ory r i ghtt o a c c e ptorw a i ve tha tc ove r a ge . I d. a t266. T he G eorgi a G ener al A ss em bl y s ub se qu ent l y e nact ed a r epea l i ng st atut e w hi ch el i m i nat ed cl ai m s f

or P IP coverage i n exces s of the st at ed am ou ntof po l i ci es re gardl es s of the i nsurer ’ s f ai l ure t o i nform . Id. T he re peal erexpl i ci t l y s t at ed that i tappl i ed t o cl ai m s bas ed on i nsurance pol i ci es i n eff ec ton the dat e of the re peal ( a n d th e r e f

o r e to f a ilu r e s to in f

o r m th a t h a d o c c u rr e d p r io rto th e r e p e a l) . I d . C itin g E n g e r , th e G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld th a t n o tw ith s ta n d in g its e x p lic it te r m s , th e r e p e a lin g s ta tu te c o u ld n o t c o n s titu tio n a lly b e ap p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e ly to defe ata c l ai m for the addi t i on al P IP benefi t s i f the cl ai m w as base d u po n fac t s that14

ha d oc c urr e d pr i ort o the e f f e c t i ve da t e of

the r e pe a l i ng s t a tut e , e ve n w he r e the c l a i m w a s br oughta f

t e rtha te f

f e c t i ve da t e . I d. a t266- 67. F rom D enni ng t on t o B ank o f N orm an P ark t o E ng ert o M ul l i ns, G eorgi a l aw i s c l ea r. R epea l erl egi sl at i on i s nott o b e c on strued t o i m pi ng e upo n v es t ed s ubs t a nt i ve r i ght s , a nd no s a vi ngs c l a us e i s ne c e s s a ry t o puti nt o e f f e c tthe s tr ong pres um pt i on thatre peal s a re no ti nt ended t o aff ec ttho se ri gh t s. W here the G ener al A ss em bl y m akes cl ea r i t s i nt entt o i nt er fe re w i th the vi nd i ca t i on of a ve s t e d r i ght , tha ti nt e ntw i l l notbe gi ve n e f f e c t , be c a us e the G e or gi a C ons t i tut i on forbi ds i t . W e do n otbel i eve thatthe G ener al A ss em bl y m ade c l ea r thati ti nt ended the r e pe a l of

the pr i ors t a tut e s de f

i ni ng c r e di t orr i ght s t o appl y r e tr oa c t i ve l y , but e v e n if it h a d e x p r e s s e d th a t in te n t, th e r e s u lt w o u ld b e th e s a m e . U n d e rG e o r g ia la w , if a r ig h t is s u b s ta n tiv e a n d it is v e s te d , it c a n n o t b e e x tin g u is h e d . T he di s tr i c tc our ti n thi s c a s e a tt e m pt e d t o di s t i ngui s h the E nge ra nd B r a un de c i s i ons on the ba s i s tha tthe y a nd a ny othe r s i nvol vi ng c om m on l a w c a us e s of a c tio n a r e d if

f e r e n t. T he c our tc i t e d no de c i s i ons t o s uppor ttha tthe ory of d is tin c tio n , n o rd id it e x p lic a te a r a tio n a le f o rit. M o s t lik e ly , w h a t th e c o u r t h a d in m in d is th is : W h e n a s ta tu te th a t c o d if ie s a c o m m o n la w c a u s e o f a c tio n is r e p e a le d , th e g e n e r a l ru le in s o m e s ta te s is th a t th e c a u s e o f a c tio n c o n tin u e s to e xi s ta s i tha d unde rthe c om m on l a w i n pl a c e be f or e the c odi f

i c a t i on. S e e 8215

C . J. S . S t atut es § 3 75 (200 4) (“ A com m on -l aw ri gh tw hi ch i s e m bo di ed i n st atut ory t e r m s e xi s t s a s a n e nf

or c e abl e r i ghte xc l us i ve of a ny s t a tut e de c l a r a t ory of i t , a nd s uc h a r i ghtthe r e f

or e i s notabr oga t e d by r e pe a l of the s t a tut e . ” ( c i t i ng J e s s e n v. S t at e, 2 9 0 N . W . 2 d 6 8 5 (W i s. 1 9 8 0 ))). B ecau se th e p resen tcase i n v o l v es a s t a tut ory r i ght , i ti s di f

f e r e nt , ors o the r e a s oni ng w oul d go. T he pr obl e m s w i th tha tr e a s oni ng a r e s e ve r a l a nd i ns ur m ount abl e . F i r s t , the i nt er es t s thatw ei gh agai nstthe re troac t i ve re peal of st atut ory r i gh t s a re j ustas h e a v y a s th o s e th a t w e ig h a g a in s t r e tr o a c tiv e r e p e a l o f c o m m o n la w r ig h ts . S e c ond, the r e i s no hi ntof s uppor ti n the G e or gi a S upr e m e C our tde c i s i ons f ora ny th e o ry th a t v e s te d s ta tu to ry r ig h ts a r e e n title d to le s s p r o te c tio n u n d e rth e G e o r g ia C on st i tut i on than v es t ed com m on l aw ri gh t s. T hi rd, M ul l i ns i nv ol ved a vest ed st atu t o ry ri g h t , n o ta co m m o n l aw ri g h t , so th atd eci si o n st an d s fo u rsq u are ag ai n st an y n o t i o n th atst atu t o ry ri g h t s are d i fferen tfro m co m m o n l aw o n es fo r th ese p u rp o ses. A s w e s aid ea rlier, th e q u es ti o n G eo rg ia law p o se s is w h eth erC h ep sto w ’s ri gh t s und erG a. C od e A nn . § 1 8-2-22 and the U F T A , § 1 8-2-70 , etse q. , w er e ve s t e d a nd s ubs t a nt i ve . T he a ns w e ri s y e s . T he y w e r e ve s t e d r i ght s , be c a us e the a lle g e d a c tio n s o f

th e d e f e n d a n ts o c c u rr e d p r io rto th e J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 2 e f f e c tiv e d a te o f th e U F T A a n d its r e p e a le rp r o v is io n . T h ey w ere al so su b st an t i v e ri g h t s, b ecau seThe de fenda nts conce de that the UF TA provisions that parallel those of § 18-2-22 3 confer substantive rights. L og ically, it follows that those of § 18-2-22 did as w ell. 16 “[ s ]u b s ta n tiv e la w is th a t la w w h ic h c r e a te s r ig h ts , d u tie s , a n d o b lig a tio n s .” P o lito v . H o lla n d , 3 6 5 S .E .2 d 2 7 3 , 2 7 4 ( G a . 1 9 8 8 ) . S e c tio n 1 8 - 2 - 2 1 p r o v id e d ( a n d s till doe s ) tha t“ [ c ] r e di t or s m a y a tt a c k a s f r a udul e nta j udgm e nt , c onve y a nc e , ora ny othe ra rr a nge m e nti nt e r f e r i ng w i th the i rr i ght s , e i the ra tl a w ori n e qui ty . ” S e c t i on 18 -2-22, before i tw as re peal ed by the U F T A , defi ned the conv ey ance s thatw er e c o n s id e r e d f

r a u d u le n t u n d e rG e o r g ia la w . T h a t s e c tio n , w h e n r e a d a lo n g w ith § 1 8 - 2 - 2 1 , g a v e a c r e d ito ra s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h t to o v e r tu rn a c o n v e y a n c e in c lu d e d in th a t p r o v is io n ’s d e f

in itio n o f f r a u d u le n t c o n v e y a n c e . B e c a u s e C h e p s to w ’s r ig h ts 3 u n d e r§ 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 w e r e b o th s u b s ta n tiv e a n d v e s te d , u n d e rG e o r g ia la w th e y c o u ld n o t b e e x tin g u is h e d b y r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lic ab le le g is la tio n . B. T he tw o d ec i si on s the di stri ctcourtci t ed t o sup po rti t s rul i ng on thi s i ss ue – F u lto n B a g a n d G o ld –d o n o t s u p p o r t it. F ul t on B a g i nvol ve d the G e ne r a l A s s e m bl y ’ s r e pe a l of a s t a tut e a l l ow i ng the d e d u c tio n o f

f e d e r a l in c o m e ta x e s f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

c a lc u la tin g s ta te in c o m e ta x e s . 95 S . E . 2d a t850. T he r e pe a l i ng s t a tut e , w hi c h w a s e na c t e d on D e c e m be r18, 1953, pr ovi de d tha ti tw a s t o be appl i e d t o a l l t a x y e a r s e ndi ng on ora f t e rF e brua ry 15, 1 9 5 2 . I d . T h e is s u e w a s w h e th e rth a t r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n v io la te d th e G e o r g ia17

C o n s titu tio n b y im p in g in g o n v e s te d s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts . I d . a t 8 5 1 . T h e G e o r g ia S up re m e C ou rthel d thati tdi d n ot , because at axpaye r has no vest ed ri gh ti n t ax e xe m pt i ons w hi c h a r e m e r e s t a tut ory pr i vi l e ge s gr a nt e d a s a m a tt e rof l e gi s l a t i ve grac e. Id. T hi s i s the core of the ho l di ng i n thatca se : A p e r s o n h a s n o v e s te d r ig h t in s ta tu to ry p r iv ile g e s o re x e m p tio n s . . . . An e x e m p t i o n wh i c h e x i s t s b y s t a tu t e m a y b e r e d u c e d o rwi th d r a wn by s t a tut e ; . . . E xe m pt i on i s buta s t a tut ory orc ons t i tut i ona l s hi e l d, w hi ch bei ng re m ov ed, the expo sure t o p roce ss i s the sa m e a s i f i thad never been i nt erpo se d; . . . . [A ] l l ow ance s a nd dedu ct i on s of F eder al i nc om e t a xe s pa i d i s nota r i ght , buta pr i vi l e ge a c c or de d t o the t axpaye r a s am att erof l egi sl at i ve grace . I d . ( c ita tio n s a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . T he hol di ng of

F ul t on B a g tha tthe r e i s no ve s t e d r i ght , w hi c h i s t o s a y no r i g h tth a tc a n n o tb e r e tr o a c t i v e l y r e p e a l e d , i n a s t a tu t o ry e x e mp t i o n o n s t a t e i n c o me t axes i s aw el l -e st abl i shed on e i n G eorgi a l aw . S ee , e. g. , G en. M ot ors A cc ept ance C orp. v. Ja ckson, 54 2 S . E . 2d 53 8, 54 1 (G a. C t . A pp . 20 00 ) ( “ W hether a nd t o w hat e x te n t d e d u c tio n s to a ta x a tio n p la n a r e a llo w e d is a m a tte ro f le g is la tiv e g r a c e . . .

. ” ) ; S e aboa r d C oa s tL i ne R . R . C o. v. B l a c km on, 199 S . E . 2d 581, 583 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1 9 7 3 ) (“ [W ] h ere a p ro v i si o n as a m att er o f g race co n fers a b en efi tth en th ere m u st be s tr i c tc ons truc t i on a ga i ns tthe t a xpa y e r . ” ) ; B r os na n v. U nde r c of l e r , 140 S . E . 2d 5 1 7 , 5 1 8 - 1 9 ( G a . C t. A p p . 1 9 6 5 ) ( “D e d u c tio n s . . . o n w h ic h a n in c o m e ta x is i m po se d, ar e a l l ow ed as a m att erof l egi sl at i ve grace and are autho ri ze d o nl y w here18

the r e i s a c l e a rs t a tut ory pr ovi s i on f orthe m . ” ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) ; O xf

or d v. C ha nc e , 121 S . E . 2d 825, 829 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1961) ( “ [ T ] he a l l ow a nc e of

a de duc t i on ore xe m pt i on i n c om put i ng s t a t e i nc om e t a x i s a pr i vi l e ge g r a n te d b y le g is la tiv e g r a c e .” ) . T he pres entca se i s di ff

er entfr om F ul t on B ag and tho se other c as es i nvol vi ng t a x de duc t i ons , be c a us e the c r e a t i on of t a x de duc t i ons i s a n e xe r c i s e of l egi sl at i ve grace un der w hi ch no subst ant i ve ri gh t s m ay vest . T hi s c as e i nv ol ves th e su b st an t i v e ri g h t s o f cred i t o rs u n d er § 1 8 -2 -2 2 , an d su b st an t i v e ri g h t s can v est an d g i v e ri se t o st at e co n st i tu t i o n al ri g h t s ag ai n stretro act i v e rep eal . T h u s, th i s case is lik e th e D e n n in g to n , B a n k o f N o r m a n P a r k , E n g e r , a n d M u llin s c a s e s , a n d it is c ontr ol l e d by thos e G e or gi a S upr e m e C our tde c i s i ons . S e e , e . g. , S pe ngl e rv. E m pl oy e r s C om m e r c i a l U ni on I ns . C o. , 206 S . E . 2d 693, 698 ( G a . C t . A pp. 1974) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng F ul t on B a g on the ba s i s tha ti ti nvol ve d non- ve s t i ng r i ght s , a nd hol di ng tha tthe s t a tut e i n S pe ngl e r , be c a us e i ti nvol ve d a ve s t e d r i ght , c oul d not const i tut i on al l y be app l i ed re troac t i vel y t o cutoff ves t ed ri gh t s) . T he s e c ond de c i s i on r e l i e d upon by the di s tr i c tc our ti s the G e or gi a C our tof A p p ea ls d ec isio n in G o ld . T h er e th e a p p ellate co u rt re jected th e p lain ti ff’s ar gu m entthatthe defendant ’ s c on se ntt o con struct i ve se rvi ce of proces s und era r e pe a l e d pr oc e dur a l s t a tut e pr ovi de d a ba s i s f orpe r s ona l j ur i s di c t i on. G ol d, 13219

S . E . 2d at14 8. Itw as an ea sydeci si on t o m ake, because the st atut e und erw hi ch the pl ai nt i ff

cl ai m ed the ri gh thad b ee n repeal ed l on g b ef ore hi s c ause of ac t i on had a r i s e n. I d. T ha ti s obvi ous l y di f f e r e ntf r om the s i tua t i on w e ha ve he r e w he r e the e v e n ts g iv in g r is e to C h e p s to w ’s c la im o c c u rr e d b e f o r e § 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 w a s r e p e a le d . G ol d can al so be di st i ng ui shed on an addi t i on al grou nd . G eorgi a s t atut es a d d r e s s in g p r o c e d u r a l a n d r e m e d ia l r ig h ts m a y b e r e tr o a c tiv e ly ap p lie d . S e e , e .g ., P o l i t o , 3 6 5 S . E . 2 d at2 7 3 (“ [W ] h ere a st atu t e g o v ern s o n l y p ro ced u re o f th e co u rt s, i ncl ud i ng the rul es of evi dence, i ti s t o b e gi ven retroac t i ve ef fe ctabse ntan expres se d con tra ry i nt ent i on . ”) ; A l l ri d v . E m ory U ni v. , 28 5 S . E . 2d 52 1, 52 4 (G a. 1982) ( “ T he l e gi s l a tur e c a n c ons t i tut i ona l l y pr ovi de f orthe r e tr os pe c t i ve appl i c a t i on of

a r e m e di a l s t a tut e pr ovi de d a t i m e be f i xe d s ubs e que ntt o the pa s s a ge o f th e s ta tu te w h ic h a llo w s c itiz e n s a f f e c te d b y it a r e a s o n ab le tim e to p r o te c t th e ir r i ght s . ” ( quot a t i on a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) . T he G ol d c a s e f a l l s w i thi n tha te xc e pt i on b e c a u s e it in v o lv e d p u r e ly p r o c e d u r a l r ig h ts . B e c a us e C he ps t ow ’ s r i ght s unde r§ 18- 2- 22 w e r e s ubs t a nt i ve i n na tur e a nd vest ed pri or t o the re peal of thatprov i si on , un l i ke the ri gh t s a ti ss ue i n F ul t on B ag an d G o ld , C h ep sto w ’s rig h ts fa ll u n d ern o re co g n ized ex ce p ti o n to G eo rg ia’s const i tut i on al proh i bi t i on agai nstthe re troac t i ve el i m i nat i on by st atut e of ves t ed s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts .20 C. I n a r e c e ntc a s e , M i l l e rv. L om a x, 596 S . E . 2d 232, 238 & n. 1 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2004) , the G e or gi a C our tof A ppe a l s i ndi c a t e d tha tpr e - U F T A tr a ns f e r s c oul d be c h a lle n g e d u n d e rth e U F T A its e lf . N e ith e rp a r ty h a d s u g g e s te d th a t ap p r o a c h in the M i l l e rc a s e , i d. , a nd the opi ni on of f e r s l i tt l e by w a y of

e xpl a na t i on f

ori t . T he onl y r e a s oni ng gi ve n by the G e or gi a C our tof A ppe a l s f

ori t s s t a t e m e nttha tthe U F T A appl i e s , a nd § 18- 2- 22 doe s not , t o e ve nt s oc c urr i ng be f or e the e f

f e c t i ve d at e o f th e U F T A , i d . at2 3 8 , i s co n t ai n ed i n a tw o -sen t en ce-fo o tn o t e, w h i ch says:

In thei r bri ef

s i n the superi or court , L ee M i l l erand the other pl a i nt i f f s s pe c i f i c a l l y r e l y on [ G a . C ode A nn. ] §§ 18- 2- 21 a nd 18- 2- 22 , bu t[G a. C od e A nn . ] § 1 8-2-22 , ent i t l ed, “ C on veya nces by debt ors de e m e d f r a udul e nt , ” w a s r e pe a l e d e f f e c t i ve J ul y 1, 2002. “ [ I ] ti s the general rul e thatthe appel l at e c ou rtshal l appl y the l aw as i texi st s a t the t i m e of

i t s j udgm e nt , abs e nti m pa i r m e ntof ve s t e d r i ght s unde rthe previ ou s l aw . ” I d. (quo t i ng P i ne P oi nt e H ou si ng , L . P . v. L ow nd es C ounty B d. of

T a x A s s e s s or s , 561 S . E . 2d 860, 865 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . I d . a t2 3 8 n . 1 . Un l e s s th e r e i s a d e c i s i o n b y th e s t a t e s u p r e m e c o u r to n p o i n t , we fol l ow deci si on s by the i nt erm edi at e app el l at e c ou rtof the st at e e xceptw here there i s s trong i nd i ca t i on thatthe st at e s up re m e c ou rtw ou l d d ec i de the m att er d if f e r e n tly . S e e E rn ie H a ir e F o r d , I n c ., 2 6 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 9 0 . W e ask ed fo r th e v i ew s o f th e p art i es i n th i s case o n th e M i l l er co u rt ’ s s ta te m e n t ab o u t th e U F T A ’s s u b s ta n tiv e p r o v is io n s ap p ly in g to th is c a s e , a n d th isIt would be more accurate to say that all of the pa

rties in this case who ha

ve taken a 4 position on Mi ller agreeabout it. Horizon, a defendant who is in the ca se only on an aidingand abettingtheory, takes no position on Mill er. The de fenda

nts’ position that the Miller statement about the UF TA apply ing is dictum 5 is inconsistent with their position that § 18-2-22 wa s retroactively repe aled by

the UF TA. About thestatement in M ill e r, they say : “ This i ssu ec ould h avebe e n determine d w ith out re ferenc eto wh e ther t heNew A c t a

pp lie d o r whether t

hefo rm e r s tatut ea

pp lie d, be c a

us etrans fersmadewith such intent would havebeen voida ble under either statute.” Their c oncession that the pre-UFTA fra udulent transfers in Miller were still voidable under § 18- 2-22 contradicts their position that the UF TA repeale d § 18-2-22. 21 i s one m a tt e raboutw hi c h the y a gr e e . T he y c ol l e c t i ve l y ur ge tha tw e notf ol l ow 4 th a t s ta te m e n t in M ille r , w h ic h th e y c h a r a c te r iz e a s d ic tu m b e c a u s e th e r e s u lt w oul d ha ve be e n the s a m e i n tha tc a s e r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rpr e - U F T A l a w orthe U F T A ’ s s ubs t a nt i ve pr ovi s i ons the m s e l ve s appl i e d. T he pa r t i e s a r e uni t e d be hi nd 5 the po si t i on thatM i l l erdo es no tm andat e the appl i ca t i on of the U F T A ’ s new s ubs t a nt i ve pr ovi s i ons t o the e ve nt s i n thi s c a s e , a l l of w hi c h oc c urr e d pr i ort o the U F T A ’s ef

fe ctiv e d ate. T h eir r ea so n in g is th e s am e a t o n e lev el: M il ler’s s u g g e s te d r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n o f th e U F T A ’s s u b s ta n tiv e p r o v is io n s c o n f lic ts w ith p r io rG e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t. T h e p a r tie s ’ r e a s o n in g ab o u t th e n o n - ap p lic a tio n o f th e U F T A d o e s d if

f e rin th e p a r tic u la r s . T h e d e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t ap p ly in g th e U F T A to th is c a s e w o u ld co n fl i ctw i th G eo rg i a S u p rem e C o u rtp reced en t , b ecau se th e U F T A creat es ri g h t s, d u tie s , a n d o b lig a tio n s a f te rth e f a c t. T he de f

e nda nt s a r e notbothe r e d by theBe causewe c onclude that the Miller f ootnote is not bindi ng , we ne ed not and do not 6 reach the que stion of whether we would have re ache d the same result applying theUFTA as we did applying §§ 18- 2-21 and 18- 2-22. 22 prospectof pre- exi st i ng ri gh t s, du t i es , and o bl i gat i on s bei ng abrogat ed by new le g is la tio n ; in d e e d , th e h e a r t o f th e irp o s itio n is th a t th e U F T A d id ju s t th a t. I t is o n l y th e c r e a t i o n o f

n e w r i g h t s , d u t i e s , a n d o b l i g a t i o n s th a to f f e n d s th e m. By contra st , the pl ai nt i ff

ar gu es thatappl yi ng the U F T A t o thi s c as e w ou l d con fl i ct w ith G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t b e c a u s e it w o u ld im p a irs u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts tha tha d ve s t e d i n the i rf a vorbe f or e the s t a tut e w a s e na c t e d. W e a gr e e w i th the pa r t i e s ’ c om m on pos i t i on tha tthe di c tum f r om M i l l e rdoe s notc ontr ol the de c i s i on of thi s c as e. 6 D. Fo rth e s e r e a s o n s , we c o n c l u d e a s a ma tt e ro f Ge o r g i a l a w th a tth e UFTA di d notr e tr oa c t i ve l y r e pe a l G a . C ode A nn. § 18- 2- 22, norothe rw i s e a f f e c ta ny cl ai m s bas ed up on thatst atut ory provi si on , w here the un derl yi ng event s occ urre d b e f o r e th e J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 2 e f

f e c tiv e d a te o f

th e U F T A . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in h o ld in g to th e c o n tr a ry a n d d is m is s in g C h e p s to w ’s c la im s o n th a t g r o u n d . T h atl eav es th e ai d i n g an d ab ett i n g i ssu e an d th e co n sp i racy i ssu es.23 I V . C ou nt1 o f C hepst ow ’ s c om pl ai ntal l eged thatdefe nd antH ori zon v i ol at ed § 18- 2- 22 by a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng H unti n f r a udul e nt l y tr a ns f

e rr i ng a s s e t s t o the tr a ns f e r e e de f e nda nt s . T he r e w a s no a l l e ga t i on tha tH or i z on i t s e l f r e c e i ve d a ny of th o s e a s s e ts –th a t it w a s a “ta k in g p a r ty ,” o rtr a n s f e r e e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, in its o r d e rg r a n tin g th e m o tio n to d is m is s , n o te d th a t it agre ed w i th H ori zon’ s a l t ernat i ve ar gu m entthateven i f § 18 -2-22 h ad no tbeen r e tr oa c t i ve l y r e pe a l e d, C he ps t ow ha d f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m a ga i ns tH or i z on f or fr audu l entconv ey ance , because “ [H ori zon] i s nei ther the debt or no r the tra nsfe re e ( t a ki ng pa r ty ) of

the a l l e ge d f

r a udul e ntc onve y a nc e . ” I n r e a c hi ng tha tc onc l us i on the di s tr i c tc our tr e l i e d on K e s l e rv. V e a l , 362 S . E . 2d 214 ( G a . 1987) . I n the K e s l e rc a s e , how e ve r , the pl a i nt i f f - c r e di t ordi d nota l l e ge ba d f a i th, i nt e ntt o f

r a ud, or conspi ra cy on the partof the defendanttra nsfe re e. T he ho l di ng w as thatun der thos e c i r c um s t a nc e s the tr a ns f e r e e de f e nda ntw a s notl i abl e f

orda m a ge s ba s e d on the f a c tof the c onve y a nc e a l one , buti ns t e a d w a s l i abl e onl y f ori nj unc t i ve r e m e d ie s –h e c o u ld b e f o r c e d to r e tu rn th e tr a n s f e rr e d p r o p e r ty . I d . a t 2 1 4 - 2 1 5 . T he K e s l e ropi ni on doe s nothe l p de c i de the pr e s e ntc a s e , be c a us e i ts a y s nothi ng aboutw he the ranon- tr a ns f e r e e s uc h a s H or i z on c a n be s ubj e c t e d t o a c tua l or24

p u n itiv e d a m a g e s f

o rk n o w in g ly a id in g a n d ab e ttin g a d e b to rto c a rry o u t a frau d u l en ttran sfer, w h i ch i s w h atC h ep st o w ’ s co m p l ai n tal l eg es. W hi l e c onc e di ng tha t§ 18- 2- 22 m e nt i ons onl y f r a udul e nttr a ns f

e r s by

“ debt ors, ” C hepst ow as se rt s thatthe G eorgi a c ou rt s have r ec og ni ze d that tr a n s f e r e e s a r e p r o p e rd e f

e n d a n ts u n d e rth e s ta tu te . W ith th a t a s s e r tio n , w e a g r e e . H ow e ve r , C he ps t ow t a ke s the a s s e r t i on one s t e p f ur the rby c ont e ndi ng tha tnontr a ns f e r e e a i de r s a nd abe tt or s a r e l i abl e , t oo. H e ba s e s tha tc ont e nt i on on a s t a t e m e nti n T i m e W a rne rE ntm ’ tC o. , L . P . v. S i x F l a gs O ve rG a . , L L C , 537 S . E . 2d 397, 407 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2000) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) , c e r t . gr a nt e d a nd j udgm e ntva c a t e d on othe rgr ounds , 534 U . S . 801, 122 S . C t . 24 ( 2001) , opi ni on r e i ns t a t e d i n r e l e va ntpa r t , 563 S . E . 2d 178 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2002) , c e r t . de ni e d, 538 U .S . 9 7 7 , 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 7 8 3 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , th a t th e G e o r g ia c o u r ts h a v e “e x p lic itly a c k n o w le d g e d a n a id in g a n d ab e ttin g c a u s e o f a c tio n in to r ts in v o lv in g . . . fr audu l entconv ey ance s. ” T h a t la n g u a g e f

r o m th e T im e W a rn e ro p in io n is n o t c o n tr o llin g h e r e . F ir s t, th atcase i n v o l v ed a cl ai m o f ai d i n g an d ab ett i n g i n th e b reach o f a fi d u ci ary d u ty, no tai di ng and abett i ng i n a fr audu l enttra nsfe r, se e i d. at40 2 n . 2, w hi ch m ea ns that a n y th i n g s a i d i n th e o p i n i o n ab o u tf r a u d u l e n ttr a n s f

e r s i s d i c t a . Se c o n d , th e Ti me W a rne rc our tw a s quot i ng ouropi ni on i n M unf or d v. V a l ua t i on R e s e a r c h C orp. , 9825

F . 3 d 6 0 4 , 6 1 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) , a l s o a b r e a c h o f f i d u c i a ry d u ty c a s e , i n wh i c h we w e r e p a r ap h r a s in g a p a r ty ’s a r g u m e n t f r o m its b r ie f

. T h a t b r ie f

c ite d th e G e o r g ia S up re m e C ou rtca se of P eopl e’ s L oan C o. v. A l l en, 34 S . E . 2d 81 1 (G a. 19 45 ), w hi c h, a s w e di s c us s i n the ne xtpa r tof thi s opi ni on, e s t abl i s he d l i abi l i ty f or f r a udul e nttr a ns f

e rba s e d on c i vi l c ons pi r a c y ; the A l l e n c a s e di d notha ve t o do w ith liab ility f

o ra id in g a n d ab e ttin g . C h e p s to w u r g e s u s to c o n c lu d e , n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e ab s e n c e o f a n y b a s is in the l a ngua ge of

§ 18- 2- 22, tha ta thi r d pa r ty w ho a i ds a nd abe t s a de bt ori n c a rry i ng ou ta f raud ul enttra nsfe r i s l i abl e f or i teven tho ug h i ti s nei ther adebt or no r a tr a n s f e r e e . W e d e c lin e to d o s o . “T h e c a r d in a l ru le o f s ta tu to ry c o n s tru c tio n is to a s c e r t a i n the l e gi s l a t i ve i nt e nta nd purpos e i n e na c t i ng the l a w a nd t o c ons true the st atut e t o eff

ec tuat e thati nt ent , ” F er gu son v . F er gu son, 48 5 S . E . 2d 47 5, 47 6 (G a. 1997) , butw he n s t a tut ory l a ngua ge “ i s pl a i n a nd une qui voc a l , j udi c i a l c ons truc t i on i s notonl y unne c e s s a ry buti s f orbi dde n. ” C i ty of

J e s up v. B e nne tt , 176 S . E . 2d 81, 83 (G a. 19 70 ). O n the fa ce of the st atut e, there i s no am bi gu i ty w i th res pectt o w hether §§ 18- 2- 20, 18- 2- 21 a nd 18- 2- 22, t a ke n t oge the r , c r e a t e a n i nde pe nde ntc a us e of a c t i on f ora i di ng a nd abe tt i ng l i abi l i ty , be c a us e the r e i s nothi ng i n the l a ngua ge of th o s e p r o v is io n s to in d ic a te th a t th e y d o . I n s te a d , § 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 d e s ig n a te s c e r ta inIn Freema n v. First Union National Ba nk, 865 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2004) , the Florida 7 Supreme Court re sponded to a c ertified que stion from another pa nel of this Court which aske d: “Under F lorida law, is there a c ause of action for

aidingand abetting a f

raudulent transfer when the alleg ed aider-a

bettor is not a transf

ere e? ” I d. at 1273 n.1. Its answer is consistent with the conclusion wereach about Ge org ia law. TheFlorida Supreme Court informe d us that aider a nd abettor c laims may

not be brought under the F lorida Unifor m Fra udulent Transf

er A ct (F UFTA), Fla. Stat. §§ 726.101, et se q., ag ainst parties who a re ne ither debtors nor

transferee s. The Court re a so ne d th at be c a

us etheF UF TAdo e s n ot re fer to p artie s o ther t ha n debto rsand

trans fere e s, to allow claims to be brought ag ainst other par ties would “expand the F UFTA beyond its facial application and in a

manner that is outside the purpose and plain languag e of thestatute.” F re e man, 86 5 So . 2 d at 12 77 . Thec ourt c on c lude d “that F UF TAwa s n ot intende d toserv ea s a 26 tr a ns f e r s of a s s e t s by de bt or s t o t a ki ng pa r t i e s ( tr a ns f e r e e s ) a s pe rs e f

r a udul e nt unde rG e or gi a l a w . M or e s pe c i f i c a l l y , tha ts t a tut e s t a t e s i n r e l e va ntpa r ttha t : “ T he f o llo w in g a c ts b y d e b to r s s h a ll b e f r a u d u le n t in la w a g a in s t c r e d ito r s . . . a n d a s to th e m s h a ll b e n u ll a n d v o id : . . . ( 2 ) E v e ry c o n v e y a n c e o f r e a l o rp e r s o n a l e s ta te . . . m a d e w ith in te n tio n to d e la y o rd e f r a u d c r e d ito r s , w h e r e s u c h in te n tio n is k n o w n to the t a ki ng pa r ty . . . . ” G a . C ode A nn. § 18- 2- 22 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . S e c t i on 18- 2- 20 do es sa y that“ [t ] he ri gh t s of c re di t ors s hal l be fa vo re d b y the court s; and every r e m e d y a n d f

a c ility s h a ll b e a f

f o r d e d th e m to d e te c t, d e f e a t, a n d a n n u l a n y e f

f o r t to de f r a ud the m of

the i rj us tr i ght s . ” G a . C ode A nn. § 18- 2- 20. H ow e ve r , § 18- 2- 22 m ak es n o m en t i o n o f p art i es o th er th an d eb t o rs an d “ t ak i n g p art i es” (tran sferees) b e in g liab le , a n d th e r e is n o G e o r g ia d e c is io n th a t c o n s tru e s it to p r o v id e a c la im a g a in s t a id e r s a n d ab e tto r s w h o d o n o t th e m s e lv e s r e c e iv e th e tr a n s f e rr e d a s s e ts . W e w i l l no tpu ti nt o § 18 -2-22 a prov i si on thatthe G eorgi a G ener al A ss em bl y l ef t o u t o f it a n d th e G e o r g ia c o u r ts h a v e n o t r e a d in to it. 7vehicle by which a creditor may

bringa suit ag ainst a non-tra nsferee pa

rty . . . for moneta

ry damag es arising from the non-transf ere e par ty ’s alleg ed aiding -abetting of a fra udulent money transfer.” Id. Of c ourse, the F lorida Supreme Court wa s applying F lorida law instead of Georg ia law, but its rea soning is per suasive. 27 F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin di s m i s s i ng C he ps t ow ’ s c l a i m a ga i ns tH or i z on ba s e d upon a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng l i abi l i ty a s ano n-tra nsfe re e. W e w i l l af fi rm thatpartof the di stri ctcourt ’ s order d is m is s in g C h e p s to w ’s c la im a g a in s t H o r iz o n b a s e d u p o n th a t th e o ry o f liab ility . H o w e v e r , a s w e d is c u s s in th e n e x t p a r t o f th is o p in io n , H o r iz o n m a y s till b e liab le to C h e p s to w a s a p a r tic ip a n t in th e a lle g e d c o n s p ir a c y to a s s is t H u n t in f r a u d u le n tly tr a n s f e rr in g a s s e ts to th e tr a n s f e r e e d e f e n d a n ts . V . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d is m is s e d C h e p s to w ’s c o n s p ir a c y c la im s o le ly b e c a u s e it concl ud ed thatC hepst ow ’ s und er l yi ng cl ai m s a l l egi ng fr audu l entconv ey ance f a ile d . S e e D y e rv. H one a , 557 S . E . 2d 20, 25 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2001) ( “ T he c a us e of a c t i on f orc i vi l c ons pi r a c y l i e s noti n the c ons pi r a c y i t s e l f , buti n the unde r l y i ng t o r tc o m m i tt e d a g a i n s tth e p l a i n t i f f a n d th e r e s u l t i n g d a m a g e . ” ) . B e c a u s e we a l r e a dy ha ve c onc l ude d tha tC he ps t ow s t a t e d a va l i d c l a i m pur s ua ntt o § 18- 2- 22 a g a in s t H u n t a n d th e tr a n s f e r e e d e f e n d a n ts , it f

o llo w s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in di s m i s s i ng C he ps t ow ’ s c ons pi r a c y c l a i m a ga i ns tthos e de f e nda nt s ba s e d on the D y e rde c i s i on. W e w i l l r e ve r s e tha tpor t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e ntAlthough theGeorg ia Supreme Court in Allen used thewords “aid and abet” in the 8 opinion, it was referringnot to an independent claim based on aider a nd abettor liability , but rather w a s re ferringto a

c laim b a se d o n “ a

c on sp ira c y

. . . toaid a

nd a bet [th edebto r] to f

ore stall the [creditor] in the collection of the two judgments . . ., and ac cording ly any act doneby

one of the conspirators [i s] charg eableto all of them.” 34 S.E.2d at 824 (emphasis added) . 28 di sm i ss i ng tho se cl ai m s a nd re m and for further c on si dera t i on . H ow ever , that c o n c lu s io n ab o u t th e c o n s p ir a c y c la im s a g a in s t H u n t a n d th e tr a n s f e r e e d e f e n d a n ts d o e s n o t r e s o lv e th e a d d itio n a l q u e s tio n o f w h e th e ra c o n s p ir a c y c la im m a y lie a g a in s t H o r iz o n , w h ic h w a s n e ith e ra d e b to rn o ra tr a n s f e r e e . U nl i ke C he ps t ow ’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tH or i z on pur s ua ntt o § 18- 2- 22 ba s e d on a id in g a n d ab e ttin g liab ility , its a lle g a tio n th a t H o r iz o n to o k p a r t in a c o n s p ir a c y to v io la te C h e p s to w ’s r ig h ts u n d e r§ 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 d o e s s ta te a c la im u n d e rG e o r g ia la w . I n P e o p le s L o a n C o m p a n y v . A lle n , th e G e o r g ia S u p r e m e C o u r t r e c o g n iz e d th a t a c l a i m a l l e gi ng a c ons pi r a c y t o a i d a nd abe ta de bt ort o f or e s t a l l the c ol l e c t i on of j udgm e nt s pur s ua ntt o the f r a udul e nttr a ns f

e rs t a tut e the n i n e f

f e c t , G a . C ode § 28- 201( 2) ( 1945) , s t a t e d a va l i d c l a i m a ga i ns tthe c o- c ons pi r a t or s . 34 S . E . 2d a t824 8 ( T he 1945 ve r s i on of

§ 28- 201( 2) a s c i t e d i n A l l e n i s m a t e r i a l l y i de nt i c a l t o the v e r s io n o f

§ 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 ( 2 ) in e f

f e c t p r io rto its r e p e a l b y th e U F T A o n J u ly 1 , 2 0 0 2 ) . Inst ea d o f bas i ng l i abi l i ty on the defendant s’ st atus as tra nsfe re es , the A l l en C ou rt ba s e d i ton the i rs t a tus a s c o- c ons pi r a t or s w ho ha d a s s i s t e d the de bt ori n de f r a udi ng th e c r e d ito r . I d .29

S im ila r ly , in M ille r , 5 9 6 S .E .2 d a t 2 4 2 , th e G e o r g ia C o u r t o f A p p e a ls r e ve r s e d a gr a ntof

s um m a ry j udgm e nton a c i vi l c ons pi r a c y c l a i m w he r e the d e f e n d a n t tr a n s f

e r e e h a d p a r tic ip a te d “in as c h e m e to e f f e c t f r a u d u le n t tr a n s f

e r s ” in vi ol at i on of the U F T A . A l tho ug h the M i l l ercourtw as appl yi ng the U F T A ra ther th a n § 1 8 - 2 - 2 2 , th e ap p lic ab le c iv il c o n s p ir a c y liab ility p r in c ip le s a r e th e s a m e . I d . A s the s a m e c our te xpl a i ne d i n M us t a qe e m - G r a y don v. S unT rus tB a nk, 573 S . E . 2d 455 ( G a . C t . A pp. 2002) , “ [ a ] c ons pi r a c y i s a c om bi na t i on of tw o orm or e pe r s ons to a c c o m p lis h a n u n la w f u l e n d o rto a c c o m p lis h a la w f u l e n d b y u n la w f

u l m e a n s ,” id . a t 4 6 1 , a n d in o r d e r“[ t]o r e c o v e rd a m a g e s f o ra c iv il c o n s p ir a c y c la im , a pl ai nt i ff m ustshow thattw o o r m ore per sons, ac t i ng i n con ce rt , engaged i n con du ct th a t c o n s titu te s a to r t.” I d . ( in te rn a l c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n A l l e n, 34 S . E . 2d a t824 ( appl y i ng G a . C ode § 28- 201( 2) ) , a nd M i l l e r , 596 S . E . 2d at24 2 (appl yi ng the U F T A ), the w rong thatun derl ay the ci vi l conspi ra cy cl ai m w as a vi ol at i on of G eorgi a’ s f raud ul enttra nsfe r s t atut e. N ei ther the A l l en no r the M i l l erop i ni on pl ac es any i m po rt ance on the defendant s’ st atus as debt ors ortr a ns f e r e e s , buti ns t e a d e m pha s i z e s the i rc ons pi r i ng t oge the rt o a s s i s ti n the frau d u l en ttran sfer. W e th erefo re co n cl u d e th atG eo rg i a l aw p erm i t s cl ai m s ag ai n st no n-transfe re e def

endant s, such as H ori zon, w here the al l egat i on s a re , as here , that the y c ons pi r e d w i th the de bt ort o de f r a ud the c r e di t orby hi nde r i ng i t s c ol l e c t i ons30

of a n out s t a ndi ng de bti n vi ol a t i on of § 18- 2- 22. W e the r e f

or e w i l l r e ve r s e the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g C h ep st o w ’ s ci v i l co n sp i racy cl ai m ag ai n st H o r iz o n . V I. T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nti ns of a ra s i tdi s m i s s e d C he ps t ow ’ s f r a udul e nt tr a ns f e rc l a i m s a ga i ns tH unta nd the tr a ns f e r e e de f e nda nt s i s R E V E R S E D . T he j udgm e nti s a l s o R E V E R S E D i ns of a ri tdi s m i s s e d C he ps t ow ’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt s ba s e d upon a c ons pi r a c y the ory . T he j udgm e nti s A F F I R M E D t o the e xt e nttha ti tdi s m i s s e d C he ps t ow ’ s c l a i m a ga i ns tH or i z on on a n a i de ra nd abe tt or th e o ry . T h e c a s e is R E M A N D E D f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is opi ni on.