How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 115460
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
10285032
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

The UFTA law section on time limitations specifically states

Customer Question

The UFTA law section on time limitations specifically states that transfers going back more than four years are extinguished and transfers later are subject to a one year discovery clause. Meaning within the four year gap from the filing of a suit and the time of the transfer or event. What right does any court have to totally ignore the clear and simple meaning of the words by bastardizing later to mean earlier. Example- The ice age precedes the Civil War and occurs earlier in time. The Civil War follows the ice age in time and occurs later in time. Any transfers after the specified event or cut off time marker occur later not earlier in time. The courts are reading the statute ASS BACKWARDS with judges revealing their criminal intent to defraud UFTA defendants by claiming defendants are liable for earlier transfers occurring before the four year limitation when in fact are EXTINGUISHED. The statute eliminates not only the remedy but the right and is a statute of repose. The word is LATER not LATTER. Why has this been allowed to occur? Without question this is wrong according to the statute wording. The courts are crooked. NO ONE IN THE COURT WILL ADDRESS THIS MAJOR FLAW. I just went through a 5 year battle pointing this out and being outright ignored. The courts are a bunch of chicken shit lawyers filling their pockets at defendants expense. The court system is CORRUPT ! Are there any rational legal bodies out there? Or just ignoramuses?
Brian L. Meeker
Submitted: 1 year ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
First of all, I understand you are venting, but please understand that the attorneys and courts are bound by what the law and change in the law requires. Your example comparing the civil war and ice age is not really the same thing, because when the law was changed the legislature stated that it would be handled that way.
Second, I am not sure what you mean about "later" and "earlier," but the fraudulent transfer act states any transactions within 4 years. The act says, in pertinent parts:
Under Section 4(a)(1), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant;
(b) under Section 4(a)(2) or 5(a), within 4 years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or
(c) under Section 5(b), within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.
The comments to the code state that its purpose is to make clear that lapse of the statutory periods prescribed by the section bars the right and not merely the remedy.
If your court is holding otherwise, that would be a matter for you to appeal yourself. The only way they could claim actions outside the 4 year period would still be enforceable is if those actions were not reasonably discoverable by the claimant.