Opinion ID: 3170817
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonably Equivalent Value for Funds

Text: in the Entireties Account Second, the Wettachs argue that the Trustee failed to show that the deposits into the entireties account funded nonnecessary expenditures. However, because the Wettachs did not carry their burden of production on this issue, we affirm the district court. As discussed above, see supra Part II.A, the bankruptcy court correctly required the Trustee to prove all elements of his fraudulent transfer claims by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 507. However, it also created a rebuttable presumption that funds deposited into an entireties account were not in exchange for reasonably equivalent value and thereby shifted the burden of production to the Wettachs. Id. The Wettachs produced no evidence to demonstrate how they spent the wages deposited into the entireties account. The bankruptcy court even offered them a “dollarfor-dollar reduction against any liability” for other deposits 20 into the account. In re Wettach, 489 B.R. at 507-08. The court in fact did exclude from the Trustee’s potential recovery an inheritance from Thomas Wettach’s father. Id. at 512-13. The only other potential source of funds that the Wettachs identify is $107,000 in pre-existing funds in the entireties account at the start of the lookback period. Yet the sole evidence of these funds is Exhibit 23, which is not part of the record in this case. See supra Part II.B.1. Having failed to carry their burden of production and absent clear error by the bankruptcy court, the Wettachs have no claim for relief on appeal. The order of the district court on this issue is affirmed.