Court Opinion

ID: 9452559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:44:32.614615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:16.106083
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result reached by Judge Ely. I cannot agree with him that Section 3439.07 of the California Civil Code, upon which the referee relied, was “misapplied.” I think it was applicable, and rendered the conveyance fraudulent. But it was relied upon, per se, to authorize the remedy. This I think, was error. The referee sought to achieve the remedies suggested by Section 3439.09. But while the transfer was fraudulent under Section 3439.07, the remedies suggested by the referee was its recovery, by the trustee, even though it had been previously returned by Hassen. The only logical basis for such a remedy would be Section 3439.09 (a) (2) which permits a creditor to “[disregard the conveyance and attack or levy execution upon the property conveyed.” The property, having already been returned, could not, in my opinion, be again reached under any remedy provided by Section 3439.09.
The Fraudulent Conveyance Act constitutes a two step process. First, the facts are tested by Section 3439.07 to decide if a transfer was fraudulent. Second, a creditor can try to remedy a fraudulent transfer under Section 3439.05. In this case the facts come within Section 3438.07, and that section was properly applied so that the law declared the transfer to have been fraudulent. Up to this point there was no error. However, the referee permitted the second step, which I say was necessarily premised upon Section 3439.05. It was in applying that section that the referee *885committed error, because it was inequitable. Cf. § 3439.11.)