Opinion ID: 2974066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amy Morriss Lowry’s Liability

Text: -5- Nos. 04-6334/6335 Tareco Props. v. Morriss Amy Morriss Lowry is liable for the fraudulent conveyances as a transferee under the Uniform Act even if she did not intend to commit fraud.2 The Tennessee Code provides that a creditor, in an action to recover a fraudulent transfer, may obtain “[a]voidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim.” Tenn. Code. Ann. § 66-3- 308(a)(1). To the extent such a transfer is voidable, the creditor may obtain a judgment against “[t]he first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made.” § 66-3- 309(b)(1) (emphasis added). Because Steve Morriss fraudulently conveyed money into the Amy Morriss account, and because Amy Morriss Lowry, as owner of the account, was the “first transferee,” Amy Morriss Lowry is liable for the transferred money. The defendants’ argument—that Amy Morriss Lowry should not have been held liable because the district court found that she “lacked the requisite intent to be a co-conspirator”—is without merit. There is nothing in the Uniform Act requiring fraudulent intent; the statute is silent as to scienter. Cf. Bowlin v. Comm’r, 273 F.2d 610, 611 (6th Cir. 1960) (holding, without discussing intent, that a wife who received cash from her insolvent husband was a transferee and thus liable under a previous Tennessee fraudulent conveyance statute). Moreover, courts interpreting identical statutes from other jurisdictions have held that there is no intent requirement for transferee liability. See, e.g., Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 557-58 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that Washington’s 2 At oral argument, counsel for the defendants indicated for the first time that Amy Morriss Lowry’s liability had been discharged through bankruptcy. Without any evidence that her debt to Tareco has been properly discharged, we decline to decide whether the appeal as to Amy Morriss Lowry has been rendered moot. -6- Nos. 04-6334/6335 Tareco Props. v. Morriss Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act “permits entry of judgment even without proof that the transferee knowingly accepted property and intended to assist the debtor in evading the creditor”). The district court therefore properly found Amy Morriss Lowry liable as a transferee despite its finding that she did not intend to participate in a fraudulent conveyance.