Antecedent Debt

177 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• In re Royal Golf Prods. Corp. v. Fid. Bank OF Mich.
  908 F.2d 91· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that payments made by a third party to a creditor on behalf of a debtor can be a voidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) to the extent the transaction depleted the debtor's estate, and the valuation for the preferential effect is determined as of the bankruptc
• In re CHG Int'l, Inc. v. Barclays Bank
  897 F.2d 1479· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-28 ·cited 4×
  Payments on long-term debt are not covered by the ordinary course of business exception to preferential transfers, and interest on such loans accrues when the loan is incurred, not when payments are due.
• Mbank Alamo Nat'l Ass'n v. Raytheon Co.
  886 F.2d 1449· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Raytheon did not have a purchase money security interest (PMSI) in the accounts receivable because the transaction involved advancing inventory, not funds to acquire the accounts, and thus Raytheon's claim was subordinate to MBank and DuPont's perfected securi
• Begier v. United States Internal Revenue Serv.
  878 F.2d 762· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that pre-petition payments of non-segregated funds to the IRS for tax withholding obligations are not avoidable preferential transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). These payments are considered a special fund in trust for the government under I.R.C. § 7501 and are the
• In re Pac. FAR E. Line, Inc. v. Bankruptcy
  644 F.2d 1290· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that sections 60(a) and 60(b) of the Bankruptcy Act apply to attorney transfers for antecedent debts, and that Bankruptcy Rule 220 applies to all attorney fees in contemplation of bankruptcy, not just bankruptcy-related services.
• John Ownbey Co., Inc. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  645 F.2d 540· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Commissioner failed to prove International was insolvent at the time of the asset transfers to Ownbey, which is a necessary element for transferee liability under Tennessee law.
• Lovett v. Shuster
  633 F.2d 98· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the erroneous consideration of deposition testimony was harmless error, and that perfection of a security interest in instruments under Minnesota law occurs upon possession, not formal assignment.
• In re Prestige Spring Corp. v. Beril Abraham
  628 F.2d 840· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in basing the judgment on a fraudulent transfer theory not pled, but found certain transfers to Norman and Sherry Slone were voidable preferences. The judgment against Norman Slone was reduced, and the judgment against Arnold Slone w
• In re Supermercados SAN Juan, Inc.
  575 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the transfer of promissory notes as collateral was a voidable preference under the Bankruptcy Act because the pledge agreement was not perfected against third parties under Puerto Rican law. However, payments made on the notes before the four-month preference
• E. F. Corp. v. Arvel C. Smith in Bankr. for Rosen Oil Corp.
  496 F.2d 826· 10th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claim for voluntary personal services rendered within four months of bankruptcy cannot relate back to an earlier transaction for secured status, as value is only given when the services are performed.
• Bullard v. Aluminum Co. OF Am.
  468 F.2d 11· 7th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 4×
  A transfer made by an insolvent debtor without fair consideration, even if for an antecedent debt, is a fraudulent transfer under § 67d(2)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act, regardless of the transferor's intent.
• De Aragon v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
  457 F.2d 263· 1st Cir.· 1972-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the $250,000 payment made by the sugar mill to the bank was not a fraudulent transfer under the Bankruptcy Act because it constituted fair consideration for an antecedent debt.
• Edwards & Deutsch Lithographing Co. v. Bankruptcy
  398 F.2d 1020· 10th Cir.· 1968-08-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the creditor had reasonable cause to believe the debtor was insolvent when preferential payments were made, based on the totality of circumstances.
• G. F. Wertime, Inc. v. Turchick
  358 F.2d 802· 2d Cir.· 1966-04-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an unrecorded mortgage assignment, even if initially a nullity, can constitute a voidable preference under Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act if perfected within four months of bankruptcy filing while the debtor is insolvent and the transferee had reasonable cau
• Edward Schilling in Bankr. Reorganization of N. Atl. & Gulf S.S. Co., Inc. v. McALLISTER Bros., Inc.
  310 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1962-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a payment made by a debtor during reorganization proceedings for an antecedent debt, which extinguished a maritime lien on time-chartered vessels, was not a valid transfer protected by section 70(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Act.
• Louis Shapiro in the Consolidated Bankruptcy Proceedings of the Estate of Dorothy Hubbard and Grover D. Still v. Royal Indem. Co.
  224 F.2d 89· 3d Cir.· 1955-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the transfer of funds from Bechtel to Royal, and subsequently to Puritan, constituted a voidable preference under the Bankruptcy Act because it was a transfer of the debtor's property for an antecedent debt, and the recipient had reasonable cause to believe th
• Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp. v. Hamilton NAT. Bank
  199 F.2d 127· 6th Cir.· 1952-10-07 ·cited 4×
  An employer who receives stolen money from an employee, without providing valuable consideration, cannot claim title to the money and must return it to the defrauded party.
• Trautwein v. Mandel. in re Layton's Estate
  127 F.2d 567· 8th Cir.· 1942-04-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the referee erred in invalidating part of the chattel mortgage without sufficient proof of the bankrupt's insolvency at the time the mortgage was executed.
• 3V Cap. Master Fund Ltd. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa
  444 B.R. 613· S.D. Fla.· 2011-02-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that the Transeastern Lenders received fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• Moran v. Schurger
  849 So. 2d 1184· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court reversed a lower court's decision to pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual personally liable for a corporate debt. The court found insufficient evidence of fraud or intent to mislead creditors, and that the claim was time-barred.
• Deakter v. Augusto Menendez, Jr.
  830 So. 2d 124· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The Mendelson Living Trust appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of note claim against Menendez. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on whether a lost renewal note was enforceable, whethe
• In re Southmark Corp. v. Southmark Pers. Storage, Inc.
  993 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preferential transfer under the extended insider preference period requires the insider to be a creditor in connection with the specific antecedent debt that triggered the transfer, not merely a creditor in a general sense or on an unrelated debt.
• In re Montgomery v. Third Nat'l Bank IN Nashville
  983 F.2d 1389· 6th Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that transfers of funds obtained through check kiting at other banks, commingled and used to pay off antecedent debts at the defendant bank, constituted voidable preferences because the debtor exercised sufficient control over the funds to establish a property inte
• In re Perma Pac. Props. v. Eustace H. Winn, Jr.
  983 F.2d 964· 10th Cir.· 1992-12-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of a security interest by the debtor to Winn was a voidable preference because it was made for an antecedent debt of the debtor, depleting the estate for other creditors.
• In re Melon Produce, Inc. v. Karger
  976 F.2d 71· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a creditor's perfected security interest in after-acquired property, including rights to money and checks, does not relate back to the original filing date for bankruptcy preference purposes if the interest is created or perfected within the preference period.
• In re Virginia-Carolina Fin. Corp. v. Creative Fin. Mgmt.
  954 F.2d 193· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a payment made by debtors to a creditor was a voidable preference because it was on account of an antecedent debt and the creditor received more than they would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation, regardless of collateral held from a third party.
• In re Willaert v. LE Sueur State Bank
  944 F.2d 463· 8th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court erred in failing to recognize that a preferential mortgage transfer and the subsequent transfer of sale proceeds are a single transaction, and that the trustee can recover the value of the preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 550(a).
• Lovett v. ST. Johnsbury Trucking
  931 F.2d 494· 8th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 2×
  Payments made within 90 days of bankruptcy filing were in the ordinary course of business and thus not recoverable as a voidable preference, as the timing was consistent with the parties' actual past dealings.
• In re Cal. Trade Tech. Schs., Inc. v. United States
  923 F.2d 641· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 2×
  Funds deposited into a trust account as restitution become valid trust funds, but if those deposits occur within the preference period, they can be avoidable preferences if they consist of the debtor's own property.
• In re Warne Ehring v. Western Community Moneycenter
  900 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A nonjudicial foreclosure sale by a secured creditor within 90 days of bankruptcy filing is a transfer, but it does not constitute an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) if the creditor does not receive more than it would have in a Chapter 7 liquidation.
• In re Pitman v. Mid-State Homes, Inc.
  843 F.2d 235· 6th Cir.· 1988-03-30 ·cited 2×
  A mortgage transfer made on the same day as the transfer of a warranty deed, in exchange for the deed, constitutes a contemporaneous exchange for new value under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1), and is not avoidable as a preference.
• In re Caro Prods., Inc. v. H. Hirschfield & Sons, Inc.
  746 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1984-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, specifically 11 U.S.C. § 547(b), applies to transfers made during the 'gap period' (after enactment but before the effective date) if the bankruptcy petition was filed after the effective date. Such application does not raise
• Lawson F. Bernstein in Bankr. of Frigitemp Corp. v. S. Cent. Bell Tel. Co.
  730 F.2d 987· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trustee failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the creditor (Bell) had reasonable cause to believe the debtor (Frigitemp) was insolvent at the time of the alleged preferential transfer.
• Reese v. Akai Am. Ltd.
  19 B.R. 83· S.D. Fla.· 1982-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that payments made by Kennedy and Cohen to vendors within four months of bankruptcy constituted voidable preferences because the vendors had reasonable cause to believe the company was insolvent.
• In re W. Coast Food Sales, Inc. v. B. J. Holmes Sales Co., Inc.
  637 F.2d 707· 9th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 2×
  A security agreement executed by a proprietorship remains effective against accounts receivable generated by a successor corporation after a change in entity status, even if no new security agreement is executed by the corporation.
• Winthrop J. Allegaert in Bankr. of duPont Walston, Inc. v. Chem. Bank
  657 F.2d 495· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the security interest attached on July 2, 1973, making the transfer more than four months before bankruptcy, and that the DGF debenture qualified as an instrument under the UCC, allowing perfection by possession.
• In re Columbus Malleable, Inc.
  459 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transaction constituted a preferential transfer because it depleted the debtor's assets available to general creditors, even though the exact amount of a prior secured obligation was not proven.
• Merit Clothing Co. v. Lees
  218 So. 2d 779· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Shoe and clothing companies appeal a summary judgment in favor of defendants in a dispute over priority of claims to assets of a clothing store. The court held that a bulk sale of inventory in satisfaction of an unrecorded chattel mortgage violates Florida's Bulk Sales Act and th
• Stone v. Moore
  375 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1967-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A Christmas bonus paid to an employee while the debtor was insolvent and within one year of bankruptcy, without prior agreement or expectation, is a voidable transfer and must be surrendered before the employee's claim against the estate will be allowed.
• Bertram v. Citizens Nat'l Bank
  283 F.2d 783· 6th Cir.· 1960-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the payment to the bank did not constitute a voidable preference because the release of the attachment extinguished the lien, and the payment did not diminish the assets available to general creditors.
• Flournoy L. Largent v. Eldridge M. Lemley
  272 F.2d 66· 4th Cir.· 1959-11-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the bankrupt's transactions with two creditors were too intertwined to be considered separately and that the case should be remanded for a full consideration of all parties' rights, including the possibility of a voidable preference against Mrs. Aulick.
• Harvey L. Velde in bankruptcy of Thomas P. Lawless v. Ezra Rumbold
  256 F.2d 163· 7th Cir.· 1958-06-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that where a trustee seeks to recover a voidable preference, the general rule requires surrender of the property, and alternative relief for its value is only available if conversion is alleged and proven.
• Kilgo v. United Distribs., Inc.
  223 F.2d 167· 5th Cir.· 1955-06-08 ·cited 2×
  A mortgage on a debtor's homestead with a waiver, executed while insolvent within four months of bankruptcy, is not voidable as a preference if it only encumbers the property with a lien, as exempt property is excluded from the bankruptcy estate.
• Bridgewater v. Schaefer
  164 F.2d 447· 5th Cir.· 1947-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an unrecorded deed, given for an antecedent debt, was a voidable preference and void against the bankruptcy trustee because the grantee's possession was not exclusive or inconsistent with the grantor's record title.
• Associated Seed Growers, Inc. v. Geib
  125 F.2d 683· 4th Cir.· 1942-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the assignment of future proceeds was valid and not a voidable preference because it was made for present consideration, not an antecedent debt.
• Wesolek v. Wesolek
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-12-22
  The court held that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has stated plausible claims for fraudulent transfer under the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• Arnold v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.
  2014 WL 2958600· M.D. Fla.· 2014-07-01
• Nat'l Mar. Servs., Inc. v. Straub
  1992 WL 92773· S.D. Fla.· 2013-10-24
  The court held that the transfer of vessel sale proceeds from Burrell to Straub was a fraudulent conveyance under Florida law, allowing National Maritime to recover the judgment amount.
• Equity Inv. P'rs, LP v. United States
  669 F. Supp. 2d 1330· S.D. Fla.· 2009-08-18
  The court held that Equity LP did not hold a valid security interest because it failed to provide evidence of parting with 'money or money's worth' in exchange for the mortgage, thus the IRS tax lien has priority. Equity LLC also took the property subject to the tax lien.
• Mied, Inc. v. Summit Healthcare Inc.
  849 So. 2d 397· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-06-18
  Judgment creditors who are officers and directors of an insolvent corporation received interest payments from asset sale proceeds. The court held these payments constituted fraudulent transfers under Florida's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, even though the creditors held valid