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.
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.