fraudulent conveyance
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 287 U.S. 348 - Shapiro v. Wilgus · 1932Most cited · 365 citing opinions
A conveyance is illegal if made with an intent to defraud the creditors of the grantor, but equally it is illegal if made with an intent to hinder and delay them.
How the Supreme Court has restated “fraudulent conveyance”
Each Supreme Court definition of “fraudulent conveyance,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “fraudulent conveyance”
Court decisions citing the 5 opinions that defined “fraudulent conveyance” — 732 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 5 definitions, chronological · 1803–1932
- ORIGINAL
Modern decisions have taken this question up upon principle, and have determined, that an unconditional sale, where the possession does not 'accompany and follow the deed,' is, with respect to creditors, on the sound construction of the statute of Elizabeth, a fraud, and should be so determined by the court. The distinction they have taken is between a deed purporting on the face of it to be absolute, so that the separation of the possession from the title is incompatible with the deed itself; and a deed made upon condition which does not entitle the vendor to the immediate possession.
absolute bill of sale without possession
a contingent debt, likely to become absolute, and which afterwards does become absolute, is, both on principle and precedent, enough to furnish a motive to make a fraudulent conveyance to hinder or avoid its eventual payment. And this may be presumed to have been done here, provided circumstances exist indicative of fraud. Such circumstances must exist; and when the liability is contingent, like that of a warrantor or indorser, the conveyance cannot be considered as per se fraudulent.
contingent debt
The cardinal principle in all such cases is, that the property of the debtor shall not be diverted from the payment of his debts to the injury of his creditors, by means of the fraud.
Conveyances may be fraudulent because the debtor intends to put the property and its proceeds beyond the reach of his creditors; or because he intends to hinder and delay them as a class; or by preferring one who is favored above the others. There is no necessary connection between the intent to defraud and that to prefer.