Fraudulent Transfer Case Law in Florida

Florida’s fraudulent transfer statute gives creditors two ways to reverse asset transfers. Actual fraud requires proof that the debtor intended to hinder or defraud creditors, established through circumstantial badges of fraud. Constructive fraud requires only that the debtor gave away property without fair value while insolvent. The cases below apply those two theories to real fact patterns and show where the line falls.

One of these cases involves the firm directly. In BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Jon Alper was a named party. The Fifth District’s holding established that attorneys who implement lawful asset protection planning are not liable under Florida’s fraudulent transfer statute.

Mane FL Corp. v. Beckman (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)

The Fourth District’s decision in Mane FL Corp. v. Beckman, 355 So. 3d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), is the most recent Florida appellate decision applying the badges of fraud analysis to a real estate transfer. The court affirmed summary judgment setting aside the transfer as fraudulent after identifying seven badges in the undisputed record.

The debtor transferred property to insiders for nominal consideration while a lawsuit was pending. The insiders sold the property and used the proceeds to purchase a condominium in a new entity’s name. The court found each badge independently. The transfer was to insiders, the debtor was sued before the transfer, consideration was nominal, substantially all assets were moved, the debtor retained beneficial use, the debtor was insolvent afterward, and the transfer occurred shortly before a substantial debt was incurred.

The court also rejected the recipient’s good-faith defense. Under § 726.109(1), a transferee who took in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value has a defense. The court found the defense unavailable because the consideration was nominal and the circumstances would have put a reasonable transferee on notice.

Four or more badges of fraud can support summary judgment without the creditor proving a single statement of fraudulent intent. Courts evaluate the totality. A contemporaneous solvency affidavit is the single most effective defensive tool a debtor can produce when a transfer is later challenged.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Barber (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Sabrina Barber was represented by Alper Law. The Barber case is analyzed on the charging orders case law page for its LLC dimension, but the fraudulent transfer holding matters just as much.

After a $62.5 million deficiency judgment, the debtor transferred substantially all remaining assets to a sole-member Nevis LLC. The court found sufficient badges: transfer after an adverse judgment, transfer of substantially all assets, insider transfer to a debtor-controlled entity, retained beneficial use, and effective insolvency afterward.

The case illustrates a pattern the firm sees in consultations. A debtor facing an existing judgment transfers assets to an entity, retains control, and assumes the entity’s foreign organization provides protection. The transfer fails because the badges of fraud analysis does not depend on where the receiving entity is organized. A transfer made with fraudulent intent is voidable regardless of whether the assets end up in a Florida LLC, a Wyoming LLC, or a Nevis LLC.

Husky International v. Ritz (U.S. 2016)

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 356 (2016), that “actual fraud” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) encompasses fraudulent conveyance schemes, not just affirmative misrepresentations. Before Husky, some courts required a creditor seeking nondischargeability to prove the debtor made a false statement and the creditor relied on it. The Supreme Court rejected that limitation.

A debtor who siphons assets through fraudulent transfers to avoid paying a creditor has committed “actual fraud” even without making any direct misrepresentation. The practical consequence is that a debtor who engages in fraudulent conveyance and later files bankruptcy may find the underlying debt survives the discharge. The transfers themselves become the evidence of fraud that prevents the fresh start bankruptcy is supposed to provide.

In re Rensin (Bankr. S.D. Fla.)

The bankruptcy court’s decision in In re Rensin, 600 B.R. 870, created a planning pathway that is often overlooked. An offshore trust’s trustee used trust funds to purchase a Florida annuity for the debtor. The creditor argued this constituted a fraudulent conversion under § 222.30, which limits the exempt status of assets converted from non-exempt form with fraudulent intent.

The court held that the purchase was not a “conversion by the debtor” because the trustee—not the debtor—made the purchasing decision. Section 222.30 requires the debtor to be the person who converts non-exempt assets into exempt form. When an independent trustee exercises discretionary authority to purchase an annuity, the debtor has not performed the conversion.

An offshore trustee who independently decides to purchase a Florida-exempt asset for a beneficiary may create exempt property that the beneficiary’s creditors cannot challenge under § 222.30. The key requirement is genuine independence. A trustee who acts at the debtor’s direction does not provide the same protection.

Rosenberg v. U.S. Bank (Fla. 2023)

In Rosenberg v. U.S. Bank, 360 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 2023), the court set aside a transfer of a judgment to a trust under Florida Statutes §§ 56.29(3) and (6). The debtor had assigned a judgment to a trust, attempting to place the judgment proceeds beyond the reach of creditors.

The court treated the assignment as a transfer subject to FUVTA analysis. The transfer was voidable because it was made without reasonably equivalent value and rendered the debtor unable to pay existing debts. Rosenberg confirms that FUVTA applies to all types of property—including choses in action and judgment proceeds—not just real estate and bank accounts.

Saadi v. Maroun (11th Cir. 2025)

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Saadi v. Maroun, 157 F.4th 1353 (11th Cir. 2025), certified five questions to the Florida Supreme Court about the intersection of fraudulent transfers and proceedings supplementary. The certified questions address unresolved conflicts among Florida appellate courts that affect how long creditors can pursue fraudulent transfer claims.

The facts involved a $90,000 defamation judgment that went unpaid for nine years. The creditor eventually discovered that the debtor had transferred approximately $300,000 through his personal bank account to an LLC the debtor owned, then used those funds to purchase a condominium titled in the LLC’s name. The creditor initiated proceedings supplementary under § 56.29 and asserted both actual and constructive fraudulent transfer claims.

The district court held the claims were time-barred under § 726.110’s four-year period. The Eleventh Circuit identified the open questions: whether a money judgment is available under § 56.29(3)(b), whether transferred funds must remain identifiable, and whether the 2014 amendment to § 56.29 that made proceedings supplementary “subject to chapter 726” applies retroactively. The court also asked whether § 726.110 is a statute of repose—immune from tolling—or a statute of limitations that Florida’s general tolling provisions can extend.

Before the 2014 amendment, Florida courts consistently held that proceedings supplementary could be initiated at any time during a judgment’s twenty-year life, regardless of FUVTA’s four-year deadline. If the Florida Supreme Court rules that the pre-2014 rule survives, personal property transfers to insiders remain vulnerable to challenge for up to twenty years. If it applies the four-year FUVTA period retroactively, older transfers gain a measure of finality. The Florida Supreme Court had not ruled on these questions as of early 2026.

Wiand v. Lee (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2017)

The Wiand v. Lee decision addressed the practical problem of tracing fraudulently transferred funds that have been commingled with legitimate funds in a single account. The court applied the lowest intermediate balance rule (LIBR), which traces tainted funds by tracking the account’s lowest balance between deposit and the creditor’s claim.

If the tainted funds are deposited and the account balance later drops below the amount deposited, the tainted funds are presumed to have been spent first. Only the lowest intermediate balance remains traceable. The longer commingled funds sit in an active account, the harder they become to trace.

Keeping exempt and non-exempt funds in separate accounts avoids a tracing fight that the LIBR rule makes difficult to win. Head of household wages deposited into a separate account remain identifiable without forensic analysis. Mixed accounts force the debtor to reconstruct transaction-by-transaction histories, and the court starts from the presumption that exempt funds were spent first.

BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

Jon Alper was a named party in BankFirst v. UBS Paine Webber, Inc., 842 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). A creditor sued the debtor’s attorneys and financial advisors, alleging they conspired with the debtor to make fraudulent transfers.

The Fifth District affirmed dismissal. Neither § 222.30 nor Chapter 726 creates a cause of action against a party who assists with asset transfers but never takes possession of the property. The court drew a line between the debtor and transferee, who are liable, and the professionals who advised on the planning, who are not.

The dissent argued that lawyers who knowingly help a debtor defraud creditors should face liability. The majority rejected this position, relying on federal circuit authority holding that fraudulent conveyances are not common-law fraud and that the statutory remedy runs against the transfer itself, not against advisors.

The Florida Supreme Court later confirmed this holding in Freeman v. First Union National Bank, 865 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2004), ruling that no cause of action exists for aiding and abetting a fraudulent transfer under FUFTA. Together, BankFirst and Freeman establish that implementing lawful asset protection planning does not expose counsel to FUFTA liability, even when the creditor later challenges the transfers.

What the Cases Require for Defensible Transfers

Timing is the most important variable across all the cases discussed above. Transfers made before any claim exists or is reasonably foreseeable face no badges of fraud challenge. Transfers made after a claim exists must overcome every badge the creditor can identify.

Documentation at the time of transfer is the strongest defense. A contemporaneous balance sheet, solvency affidavit, and written statement of non-creditor purpose create a record that directly rebuts multiple badges. Receiving reasonably equivalent value eliminates constructive fraud claims and supports a good-faith defense under § 726.109.

Offshore trusts can be established both before and after lawsuits are filed. Pre-claim transfers are stronger because they avoid the badges analysis entirely. Post-claim transfers require more careful structuring but remain viable when the trust includes a Jones clause that addresses the existing creditor and the trustee is a truly independent foreign fiduciary. The tradeoffs with post-claim timing are higher contempt risk and weaker negotiating position, but the settlement economics still favor the debtor when enforcement requires litigation in the Cook Islands.

Florida’s fraudulent transfer case law continues to develop as courts address new fact patterns involving LLCs, proceedings supplementary, and the interaction between state and federal avoidance theories.