ADA TURKISH TRASK 2005 TRUST NUMBER ONE, ETC.
v.
ELLEN TURKISH
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A judgment creditor appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent transfer action brought under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act. The trial court dismissed the claim as time-barred under section 726.110, which imposes a four-year limitations period from the date of transfer. The appellate court reversed, finding that the complaint did not clearly allege when the transfer occurred, making it impossible to determine timeliness from the complaint's four corners.
The court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Because the complaint does not clearly allege when the fraudulent transfer occurred, it is not apparent from the four corners of the complaint whether the claim is time-barred under the four-year limitations period of section 726.110(1). The trial court could not properly dismiss on statute of limitations grounds without a clear factual record of the transfer date.
[1] Under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, a cause of action for fraudulent transfer must be brought within four years after the transfer was made or, if later, within o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because it is not apparent from the four corners of the Judgment Creditor's Complaint when the alleged fraudulent transfer occurred, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Opening statement of the court's holding.
In March 2017, the judgment creditor obtained a final judgment against Arthur Turkish. In April 2021, the judgment creditor filed a supplementary comp…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Actual Intent To Hinder, Delay, Or Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed May4, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1457 Lower Tribunal No. 11-1314 ________________ Ada Turkish Trask 2005 Trust Number One, etc.,
Appellant,
vs.
Ellen Turkish, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. Law Offices of Mendez & Mendez, P.A., and Sergio L. Mendez, Daniel J. Mendez and Lorena Friger, for appellant. Payton & Associates, LLC, and Harry A. Payton and Susan M. Mohorcic, for appellee Ellen Turkish. Before EMAS, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. LINDSEY, J.
Appellant,1 a Judgment Creditor, appeals from the dismissal of proceedings supplementary in aid of execution as time barred. Because it is not apparent from the four corners of the Judgment Creditor’s Complaint when the alleged fraudulent transfer occurred, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In March 2017, the Judgment Creditor obtained a Final Judgment against Arthur Turkish. In April 2021, the Judgment Creditor filed a Complaint for proceedings supplementary against Ellen Turkish, Mr. Turkish’s wife. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Turkish intentionally transferred $250,000 to Mrs. Turkish to avoid payment of the March 2017 Final Judgment in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, chapter 726, Florida Statutes.
Mrs. Turkish moved to dismiss, arguing that the Judgment Creditor’s claims are extinguished by section 726.110, which contains certain time limits for bringing a fraudulent transfer action.2 The trial court agreed and dismissed. The Judgment Creditor timely appealed.
Section 726.110, Florida Statutes (2021), sets forth the following relevant time limits for causes of action brought pursuant to the Uniform
Fraudulent Transfers Act:3
A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under ss. 726.101-726.112 is extinguished unless action is brought:
(1) Under s. 726.105(1)(a), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within 1 year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant;
(2) Under s. 726.105(1)(b) or s. 726.106(1), within4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred . . . .
the supplemental complaint are subject to chapter 726 and the rules of civil procedure.”). 3 The Judgment Creditor’s cause of action appears to be brought under section 726.105(1)(a) because it alleges the transfer was intentionally made to defraud. See § 726.10(1)(“A transfer made . . . by a debtor is fraudulent . . . if the debtor made the transfer . . . (a) With actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor . . . .”). However, the result here is the same if the time limit in section 726.110(2) applies.
Here, the cause of action is based on an alleged fraudulent transfer.4 Consequently, the Judgment Creditor was required to bring its cause of action within four years after the transfer was made.5 Mrs. Turkish alleges the fraudulent transfer took place in 2011.6 However, this is not apparent from the Complaint, which contains no allegations as to when the fraudulent transfer occurred. We therefore reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.