Bush Mallett Co. v. Helbing

2 Citing cases

  1. Menjivar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Menjivar)

    BAP No. CC-12-1608-KuBaPa (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    This has been the rule in California for a long time, well before California enacted the UFTA: "It is well settled that it is the motive of the grantor, and not the knowledge of the grantee, that determines the validity of the transfer." Bush & Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, 679 (1901). Here, the Menjivars have not alleged that they as the transferors of the 2007 notes and trust deeds entered into the 2007 refinancing transactions with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors.

  2. In re Menjivar

    BAP CC-12-1608-KuBaPa (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2014)

    This has been the rule in California for a long time, well before California enacted the UFTA: " It is well settled that it is the motive of the grantor, and not the knowledge of the grantee, that determines the validity of the transfer." Bush & Mallett Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, 679, 66 P. 967 (1901). Here, the Menjivars have not alleged that they as the transferors of the 2007 notes and trust deeds entered into the 2007 refinancing transactions with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud their creditors.