Opinion ID: 2523244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Actual fraud under RCW 19.40.041(a)(1)

Text: ¶ 24 Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) [7] a transfer is fraudulent whether the creditor's claim arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor conducted it with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor. RCW 19.40.041(a)(1). Subsection (b) of the statute provides 11 nonexclusive factors for determining actual intent. [8] Moreover RCW 26.16.210 requires spouses to prove good faith in the transfer if a plaintiff questions their motive. In every case, where any question arises as to the good faith of any transaction between spouses or between domestic partners, whether a transaction between them directly or by intervention of third person or persons, the burden of proof shall be upon the party asserting the good faith. RCW 26.16.210. ¶ 25 Based on RCW 19.40.041(b)'s 11 factors, the facts of the present matter strongly suggest fraud in the Wilsons' property transfer: The Wilsons were married, [9] Mr. Wilson continued to live on one of the properties rent free after the transfer, the transfer occurred at breakneck speed between Mr. Wilson's release from jail and eventual incarceration, Ms. Wilson received over 90 percent of the assets, the spouses knew and discussed their exposure to tort liability, Mr. Wilson gave no equivalent consideration for transferring the property, and the transfer left Mr. Wilson insolvent. Under the UFTA these factors overwhelmingly suggest fraudulence in the transfer.