Opinion ID: 510138
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: equivalency of value

Text: 21 As with the issue of antecedent debt, the trustee's Sec. 548 fraudulent transfer claim fails because no transfer has been established. It additionally fails because the debtor did not receive less than a reasonably equivalent value under Sec. 548(a)(2) in return for the $520,000.00 he forfeited. The district court determined that the forgiveness of Wey's $4.6 million debt by the forfeiture of the $520,000.00 down payment was reasonably equivalent value and consequently precluded the trustee from prevailing on his Sec. 548 claim. 22 The trustee argues that remand is necessary to ascertain whether the $520,000.00 down payment satisfies the Willocks' damage claim of reasonably equivalent value under Sec. 548. He requests a trial in order that the amount of liquidated damages may be balanced against the amount of money the Willocks lost. 23 The trustee's argument flies in the face of his motion for summary judgment in which he told the district court that no genuine issues of material fact remained. 9 The trustee counters by saying that the genesis of his request for a remand is in the district court's finding of a transfer. Because of that ruling, the trustee asserts that a factual question arose as to what actually changed hands, and that the case must be remanded. However, as with the trustee's other collateral claims, this argument fails because the transfer element was not satisfied.