Opinion ID: 1039602
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: intended to incur, or believed or

Text: reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability to pay as they became due. 12 Section 5105 states the following: A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at that time or the debtor became insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation. In applying these constructive fraudulent transfer provisions, the District Court relied on the same basic line of reasoning it applied in concluding that the transfer was actually fraudulent pursuant to Section 5104(a)(1). Given our discussion of the actual fraudulent transfer category, we agree that Mr. Weidner transferred the Property without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange, his transfer of the Property and the DMW interest rendered him insolvent, he either believed or should have believed that he would incur debts beyond his ability to pay, and Ms. Klein herself was a present creditor at the time of the transfer. Appellants take issue with the District Court’s failure to consider Ms. Weidner as an alleged good faith transferee under 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5108(a). This subsection states that “[a] transfer or obligation is not fraudulent under section 5104(a)(1) (relating to transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors) against a person who took in 13 good faith and for a reasonably equivalent value or against any subsequent transferee or obligee.” We have already explained that Ms. Weidner did not provide reasonably equivalent value, and we accordingly reject Appellants’ invocation of this defense.3 B. Availability of Punitive Damages under the PUFTA It appears undisputed that neither this Court—nor any Pennsylvania appellate court—has addressed the specific question of whether or not punitive damages are available under the PUFTA or the PUFCA. We predict that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would answer this question in the affirmative. Following the example set by Appellants themselves, we turn to the general rules of statutory construction set forth in Pennsylvania’s Statutory Construction Act of 1972. “The 3 Appellants also claim that Ms. Klein’s appellate brief violates Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 as well as Third Circuit Local Appellate Rules 28.1, 28.2, and 28.3 by failing to include citations to the appendix or the record and by engaging in unsubstantiated personal attacks. In the end, we do not believe that her brief violates any procedural rule. However, we take this opportunity to reiterate the vital importance of including appropriate and complete citations to the appendix or record in briefing submitted to this Court as well as our expectation that attorneys admitted to the Third Circuit bar will exhibit professionalism and courtesy at all times. 14 object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly.” 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1921(a). Accordingly, “[e]very statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.” Id. Conversely, “[w]hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1921(b). “When the words of the statute are not explicit, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering,” inter alia, the occasion and necessity for the statute, the circumstances under which it was enacted, the mischief to be remedied, the object to be attained, the former law, and the consequences of a particular interpretation. 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1921(c)(1)-(6). In short, the court should consider the nature and purpose of the statute. Appellants specifically emphasize 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1504, entitled “Statutory remedy preferred over common law.” This general rule of statutory construction states that: In all cases where a remedy is provided or a duty is enjoined or anything is directed to be done by any statute, the directions of the statute shall be strictly pursued, and no penalty shall be inflicted, or anything done agreeably to the common law, in such cases, further than shall be necessary for carrying such statute in effect. The Pennsylvania Statutory Construction Act further provides that “[s]tatutes uniform with those of other states shall be interpreted and construed to effect their general purpose to 15 make uniform the laws of those states which enact them.” 1 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1927. 12 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5107 governs the “Remedies of creditors” under the PUFTA:
against a transfer or obligation under this chapter, a creditor, subject to the limitations in sections 5108 (relating to defenses, liability and protection of transferee) and 5109 (relating to extinguishment of cause of action), may obtain: (1) Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim. (2) An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by applicable law. (3) Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure: (i) an injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property; 16 (ii) appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee; or