Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Ala. Code § 8-9A-4

Transfers Fraudulent as to Present and Future Creditors.

Known as the Alabama Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act

The act spans §§ 8-9A-1–8-9A-9 (12 sections).

Applied in 7 court decisions — leading case Dionne v. Keating (1998)

Most recently applied in SE Property Holdings, LLC v. Braswell (June 2017)

(Acts 1989, No. 89-793, p. 1585, §4.)

How often courts cite this section

199820002010201720
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

(a) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.

(b) In determining actual intent under subsection (a), consideration may be given, among other factors, to whether:

(1) The transfer was to an insider;

(2) The debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;

(3) The transfer was disclosed or concealed;

(4) Before the transfer was made the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;

(5) The transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets;

(6) The debtor absconded;

(7) The debtor removed or concealed assets;

(8) The value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred;

(9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made;

(10) The transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and

(11) The debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the debtor.

(c) A transfer made by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim arose before or after the transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer and the debtor:

(1) Was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or

(2) Intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that he or she would incur, debts beyond his or her ability to pay as they became due.

Official source: Alabama Legislature (ALISON). Reproduced from public-domain Alabama statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.