GA Code § 18-2-77 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 18 - Debtor and Creditor|Chapter 2 - Debtor and Creditor Relations|Article 4 - Uniform Voidable Transactions Act|§ 18-2-77. Relief for Creditor Against Fraudulent Transfer or Obligation

  In an action for relief against a transfer or obligation under this article, a creditor, subject to the limitations in Code Section 18-2-78, may obtain:   Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor's claim;   An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Chapter 3 of this title; and   Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure:   An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property;   Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee; or   Any other relief the circumstances may require.       If a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor, the creditor, if the court so orders, may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds.     (Code 1981, §18-2-77, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 141, § 3; Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 4A-1/SB 65.)   Law reviews.   - For annual survey on business associations, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 19 (2018). For annual survey on real property law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 209 (2018).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Pleadings adequate for fraud.   - Actual fraud was adequately pled by alleging badges of fraud sufficient to infer the fraudulent nature of transfers to insiders; moreover, insolvency resulting in constructive fraud also was adequately pled. Ralls Corp. v. Huerfano River Wind, LLC, 27 F. Supp. 3d 1303 (N.D. Ga. 2014).   Claims survived motion to dismiss.    - When an investor asserted fraudulent transfer and related claims against accounts in the names of the former wife and widow of a consultant who allegedly defrauded the investor, the claims survived a motion to dismiss because the investor: (1) stated viable claims; (2) did not have to anticipate affirmative defenses; and (3) did not admit such defenses. Speedway Motorsports, Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank, 315 Ga. App. 320, 727 S.E.2d 151 (2012).   Improper dismissal for failure to state a claim.    - Trial court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because it was too soon in the case to conclude, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs could not present evidence satisfying the statutory elements of O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et. seq., seeking to void the transfer of assets. Lyle v. Fulcrum Loan Holdings, 354 Ga. App. 742, 841 S.E.2d 182 (2020), cert. denied, No. S20C1103, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 787 (Ga. 2020), cert. denied, No. S20C1327, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 789 (Ga. 2020).   Transfer prior to death.    - Although the transfer of a house was accompanied by some badges of fraud, the trial court abused the court's discretion in enjoining further disposition of the house, pending adjudication of the merits of wrongful death and fraudulent transfer claims since the transferor gave the house to the transferor's three minor grandchildren in Florida three months before the transferor murdered the decedent. Bishop v. Patton, 288 Ga. 600, 706 S.E.2d 634, overruled on other grounds by SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011).    Evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict under the plaintiff's theory of fraudulent transfer and civil conspiracy as some evidence authorized the jury to find that a deed conveying the property owner's sole interest to the real property to the owner and one defendant as joint tenants with right of survivorship without any money exchanged prior to death was to evade the plaintiff before a promissory note was paid. Bloom v. Camp, 336 Ga. App. 891, 785 S.E.2d 573 (2016).   Suit against non-transferees of property barred.    - Judgment creditor could seek relief under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (now Uniform Voidable Transactions Act), O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., against the judgment debtor, as well as any recipient of the transfers the debtor made, O.C.G.A. §§ 18-2-77 and18-2-78, but the creditor could not pursue the judgment debtor's mother and sister or their corporation because they did not receive any interest in the properties from the judgment debtor. RES-GA YPL, LLC v. Rowland, 340 Ga. App. 713, 798 S.E.2d 315 (2017).   Interlocutory injunction proper.    - Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in entering an interlocutory injunction to preserve the status quo pending adjudication of the merits of the creditor's action against the debtors alleging breach of contract and fraudulent transfers in violation of the Georgia Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (UFTA), O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., because at least seven statutory badges of fraud listed in the UFTA (now Uniform Voidable Transactions Act), O.C.G.A. § 18-2-74(b), were implicated, and the creditor also presented evidence as a non-statutory badge of fraud of the debtors' pattern of maintaining just enough funds in certain accounts to satisfy the debtors' financial covenants at the end of each quarter and then transferring the funds away shortly thereafter; under the UFTA, O.C.G.A. § 18-22-77(a)(3)(A), the trial court was authorized to enter an interlocutory injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property. SRB Inv. Servs., LLLP v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 289 Ga. 1, 709 S.E.2d 267 (2011).   Concrete injury.    - District court correctly held that the relators lacked Article III standing to pursue a state law fraudulent transfer claim against the company owner; the False Claims Act (FCA), O.C.G.A. § 23-3-120 et seq., itself did not confer standing on relators, as the FCA did not assign relators the right to pursue additional claims that arose from or were related to the qui tam action. Relators also could not establish standing under Georgia's Uniform Voidable Transfers Act (UVTA), O.C.G.A. § 18-2-70 et seq., as it would be inconsistent with case law to hold that the UVTA could create a concrete injury where none existed. United States v. Mortg. Inv'rs Corp., 987 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2021).    Cited in Z-Space, Inc. v. Dantanna's CNN Center, LLC, 349 Ga. App. 248, 825 S.E.2d 628 (2019).   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraudulent Conveyances and Transfers, § 90 et seq.   C.J.S.   - 37 C.J.S., Fraudulent Conveyances, § 150 et seq.