Maitland v. Slutsky

3 Citing cases

  1. SCD Chemical Distributors, Inc. v. Medley

    203 Mich. App. 374 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that under UFTA, any interest of the debtor that has value falls within the term “conveyance”

    In this regard, we note that one state court has interpreted the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act to cover any property that has value, Marsh v Galbraith, 31 Tenn. App. 482, 486; 216 S.W.2d 968 (1948), and another has held the contrapositive: that the act does not cover property that has no value. Boone v Burden, 259 Or. 402, 404-405; 487 P.2d 74 (1971). We further note that the Michigan Supreme Court in Maitland v Slutsky, 281 Mich. 669, 675; 275 N.W. 726 (1937), has held that goodwill, by itself, "was not a property right subject to the claims of creditors." More recently in Christner v Anderson, Nietzke Co, PC, 433 Mich. 1; 444 N.W.2d 779 (1989), a case brought under § 851(1) of the Business Corporation Act, MCL 450.

  2. Lewis v. Trinklein

    8 N.W.2d 631 (Mich. 1943)

    Good will may be attached to the particular place where the business is conducted; it is not, however, necessarily dependent upon locality, and it may adhere to some other principal thing, such as the reputation acquired by an established business, the tangible assets of a trade, the right to use a particular name, trade mark, or valuable trade secret.'" Maitland v. Slutsky, 281 Mich. 669, 673. This case involves not merely the good will of a dissolved corporation and the use of a registered trade name but also the transferability of the right to use that trade name.

  3. Colandrea v. Colandrea

    42 Md. App. 421 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979)   Cited 41 times
    Rejecting "continuation" theory but holding successor liable on predecessor's promissory note, based on successor's participation in shareholder's fraudulent evasion of obligation

    See generally, 37 Am.Jur.2d, Fraudulent Conveyances, § 100 (1968). The premise upon which this view is based is that good will alone is not a proper subject of attachment. National Surety Co. v. Fowler, 217 Ala. 25, 27, 114 So. 408 (1927); Maitland v. Slutsky, 281 Mich. 669, 675, 275 N.W. 726 (1937). We think this interpretation is too narrow for several reasons.