§

F.D.I.C. v. Proia

663 A.2d 1252 (Me. 1995)
F.D.I.C. v. Proia

21 Citing cases

  1. Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan

    574 B.R. 1 (D. Me. 2017)   Cited 6 times

    Id.§ 3575(2). Maine's Law Court has stated: "The court may consider factors other than the [listed factors], and any combination of factors may support a determination of actual intent." FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Me. 1995).The bankruptcy court in this case found that the shareholder defendants did not engage in actual fraud. Mem. of Dec. 13–18 [App. 1338–43].

  2. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift v. Superior Serv.

    81 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D. Me. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Assessing evidence submitted by both parties and granting summary judgment to defendant on veil-piercing claim

    A plaintiff may establish the existence of a fraudulent transfer by providing clear and convincing evidence that a defendant intended to hinder, delay or defraud the plaintiff, so long as the plaintiff was a creditor of the defendant at the relevant time. 14 M.R.S.A. § 3575(1)(A); FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Me. 1995). Evidence that the transfers at issue were not made for reasonably equivalent value is an alternative way to establish a fraudulent transfer.

  3. McGonagle v. Palli

    CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. RE-12-413 (Me. Super. Feb. 7, 2014)

    Plaintiffs must show by clear and convincing evidence that the transfer was fraudulent. See F.D.I.C. v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n.2 (Me. 1995) (noting that the Act did not alter the previous burden of proof for fraud in conveyance). Generally, "[w]hether a conveyance is fraudulent is a question of fact."

  4. Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.)

    876 F.3d 384 (1st Cir. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    Actual fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence under the UFTA. FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n.2 (Me. 1995). This determination is largely factual and based on credibility.

  5. Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.)

    No. 17-1489 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017)

    Actual fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence under the UFTA. FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n.2 (Me. 1995). This determination is largely factual and based on credibility.

  6. Batal-Sholler v. Batal

    2:21-cv-00376-NT (D. Me. Feb. 28, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    Maine's Law Court has stated that courts may consider factors other than those listed, and any combination of factors may support a finding of actual intent. See Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan, 574 B.R. 1, 5 (D. Me. 2017) (citing FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Me. 1995)). To succeed on a motion to attach, the moving party must show a greater than 50% chance of prevailing on a MUFTA claim.

  7. Ramirez v. DeCoster

    194 F.R.D. 348 (D. Me. 2000)   Cited 41 times
    Holding that plaintiffs "do not necessarily satisfy the requirement that questions of law or fact predominate merely by alleging a pattern or practice claim"

    The Law Court has held that fraudulent conveyances are to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n. 2 (Me.1995). The workers also have not attempted to satisfy any Maine law on corporate veil-piercing.

  8. U.S. v. Kattar

    81 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D.N.H. 1999)   Cited 13 times
    Finding material fact issue regarding alter ego/nominee status where, inter alia, trustee/son of taxpayer had assumed substantial control over the trust assets, "including its checking account" and had been "liquidating [t]rust assets such as artwork and jewelry in his capacity as trustee" to pay bills of the trust

    "RSA") ch. 545) (repealed 1987, effective Jan. 1, 1988); Jenney v. Vining, 120 N.H. 377, 381, 415 A.2d 681 (1980) (clear and convincing evidence required to show "existence of fraud or actual fraudulent intent") (context of then extant RSA ch. 545); Hoyt v. Horst, 105 N.H. 380, 390, 201 A.2d 118 (1964) ("Fraud is never to be presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing proof."); see also, Loyal Cheese Co. v. Wood County Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 969 F.2d 515, 518 (7th Cir. 1992) Wis. Fraudulent Conveyance Act, insolvency provisions); Benson v. Richardson, 537 N.W.2d 748, 758 (Iowa 1995) (Iowa common law); Territorial Sav. Loan Assoc. v. Baird, 781 P.2d 452, 458 (Utah Ct.App. 1989) (Utah Fraudulent Conveyance Act) (clear and satisfactory standard context of insolvency provisions); Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Trout, 145 Ariz. 355, 360, 701 P.2d 851 (Ct.App. 1980) (Arizona Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act); Furniture Mfrs. Sales, Inc. v. Deamer, 680 P.2d 398, 399 (Utah 1984); FDIC v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n. 2 (1995) (Maine Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act) (Act does not change clear and convincing burden of proof). Cf.

  9. Ramirez v. DeCoster

    Civ. No. 98-186-P-H (D. Me. May. 18, 1998)

    The Law Court has held that fraudulent conveyances are to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Proia, 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 n. 2 (Me. 1995). The workers also have not attempted to satisfy any Maine law on corporate veil-piercing.

  10. Dev. Specialists, Inc. v. Kaplan (In re Irving Tanning Co.)

    555 B.R. 70 (Bankr. D. Me. 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Concluding that plaintiff had not met burden after considering evidence at trial, "including the testimony of witnesses, the exhibits offered at trial, the various papers submitted by the parties, and the stipulations of the parties"

    Finally, the court should take a holistic view and take into account all evidence that supports or undermines a finding of fraud. See F.D.I.C. v. Proia , 663 A.2d 1252, 1254 (Me.1995) citing to Commissioners' Comment 6 to Section 4 of the Editor's Notes to the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. See also , Comment 4 to Maine's version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.