Opinion ID: 2311050
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The first transferee of the asset or the person for whose benefit the transfer was made; or

Text: (2) Any subsequent transferee other than a good faith transferee who took for value or from any subsequent transferee. Moreover, a money judgment may enter pursuant to a complaint for fraudulent conveyance as against a transferee, where such transferee has disposed of or dealt with property wrongfully conveyed in such fashion that a return of the property is impossible   . Spaziano v. Spaziano, 122 R.I. 518, 521, 410 A.2d 113, 115 (1980). Levitt, the first transferee of the property, argues that the extent of a transferee's liability for a transferor's fraudulent transfer was left open in Spaziano and that in this case there was no evidence of the value of the property when conveyed. Therefore, the imposition of money damages as a result of the transfer was unsupported by any evidence. Although Levitt is correct that there was no direct testimony regarding the value of the property in September 1988 when it was fraudulently conveyed to him, it appears that the trial justice fixed the damages award against Levitt and Park City by the amount of the Nisenzons' claim against Sadowski rather than by the value of the property when it was transferred. See § 6-16-8; see also Spaziano, 122 R.I. at 522, 410 A.2d at 115 (`equity will not allow itself to be frustrated but will adapt its relief to the exigencies of the case and will enter a money judgment if this will achieve an equitable result'). Here, the trial justice imposed a money judgment upon Levitt and Park City in the amount of the money given by the Nisenzons to Sadowski. Most of this money was supposed to have been invested in the property that was then fraudulently transferred by Sadowski to Levitt and then by Levitt to Park City. The defendants knew of the Nisenzons' claim to the property. They also knew that because of Sadowski's parlous financial condition, any transfer of the property from Sadowski to others would at least hinder or delay creditors like the Nisenzons, if not frustrate them altogether, in their attempt to obtain repayment from him. We therefore cannot say this result was clearly erroneous or inequitable in the circumstances of this case.