[4]In reviewing these facts, the district court specifically found that the transfers were for legitimate reasons and not fraudulent conveyances under the UFTA.
On July 11, 1997, Christine, Jeffrey, James, and Precious executed an agreement setting forth each party's rights and obligations stemming from James and Precious' roles as sureties. [10] See Parker, supra note 2. The hope was that the land could be resold for much more due to its proximity to emerging local businesses. Facts. [4] Strunk, supra note 3; Parker, supra note 2.
U.S. Supreme Court Key Quotes and Opinion Summary .
In other words, Christine's status as a creditor for purposes of child and spousal support might entitle her to set aside a fraudulent transfer by Jeffrey if necessary to secure her rights to those support payments. [14] Black's Law Dictionary 1165 (8th ed.
reed v. reed - 275 neb. Rather, the court determines how to divide the property which already belongs to them. Shortly before filing for divorce, Jeffrey's interests in two business venturesC.J. [1-3] An appeal of a district court's determination that a transfer of an asset was not in violation of the UFTA is equitable in nature. The court applied a standard referred to as “intermediate scrutiny.” This standard requires that a law can discriminate based on gender as long as the statute is reasonable and has some “fair and substantial” relation to the goals of the legislation.
22 Ill.404 U.S. 71, 92 S. Ct. 251, 30 L. Ed. "[12] Therefore, properly framed, the question is whether a spouse's right to an equitable division of the marital estate qualifies as a "right to payment" for which the other spouse is liable.
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content-based restrictions on signage.
Richard was the adopted son of Sally Reed and Cecil Reed, who had separated. And because Christine did not assign errors or present arguments related to any other theories of recovery, we affirm the district court's judgment. In Reed v.Town of Gilbert, the U.S. Supreme Court, 135 S.Ct. Reed v. Reed (1971) Introduction Conclusion The decision reached in Reed v. Reed truly made an impact on women's rates as well as overall equality in the United States. Instead, such a claim is perhaps more properly litigated as a claim for dissipation of marital assets. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who shortly thereafter became director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, was the principal author of the brief. . Reed v. Reed Opinion of the Court by Warren E. Burger. The Supreme Court concluded that the Idaho law did not achieve the state's objective - the objective of reducing the probate court workload - "in a manner consistent with the command of the Equal Protection Clause." The "dissimilar treatment" based on sex for persons in the same class of section 15-312 (in this case, mothers and fathers) was unconstitutional.There was an error. Richard's adoptive parents, Sally and Cecil Reed, had earlier separated. Some of the funds were spent on various debts.Christine believes she is a creditor of Jeffrey because he owes her payments for child and spousal support. The Probate Court appointed Cecil as administrator, based on Section 15-314 of Idaho's code specifying that "males must be preferred to females," and the court did not consider the issue of capabilities of each parent.Idaho's mandatory provision preferring males to females reduced the probate court workload by eliminating the need to hold a hearing to determine who was better qualified to administer an estate.