Opinion ID: 200889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fleet Filed Its Claim Within the Statute of Limitations

Text: 34 Valente claims that Fleet's action is barred by the UFTA's four year statute of limitations. However, we have already concluded that this case is not governed by the UFTA. Since Valente's equitable interest in the Middletown property arose out of his fraudulent conduct, we conclude that Rhode Island's statute of limitations for fraudulent actions should apply. See Goya, 233 F.3d at 46 (relying upon New York's statute of limitations regarding fraudulent actions to conclude that the plaintiff's action was not time-barred); New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Waller, 323 F.2d 20, 26 (4th Cir.1963) (applying the state limitations period governing fraud in a fraudulent transfer case); 37 Am.Jur.2d Fraudulent Conveyances and Transfers § 180 (observing that the general rule holds that barring an express statute of limitations, fraudulent transfers are generally governed by the state's limitations period for fraudulent actions). That limitations period is ten years. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-13(a) (Except as otherwise specially provided, all civil actions shall be commenced within ten (10) years next after the cause of action shall accrue, and not after.); Jones v. Moretti, 711 A.2d 1156, 1157 (R.I.1998) (Actions for fraud in Rhode Island are subject to the ten-year statute of limitations contained in G.L.1956 § 9-1-13(a).). Since Valente's fraudulent conduct occurred in June 1992 and Fleet filed its turnover motion on May 25, 2000, Fleet's motion was not time-barred. 7