There is a presumption of fraud where there is a voluntary transfer for no consideration and there is an existing or contemplated debt for payment of which the transferor did not retain sufficient assets

—is thereby rendered insolvent and unable to satisfy the claims of his creditors.*** The incorporation of the parties' agreement into a judicial decree does not alter this result. While judicial approval in such circumstances may represent a determination that the agreement is fair and equitable as between the parties to the divorce, it does not represent a determination that …

Consequently, most decisions of other states construing parallel provisions of the UFTA hold that it does apply to marital property transfers, including those in connection with divorce

In fact, two cases have specifically rejected such claims, though we acknowledge that those two cases predate the current version of the Fraudulent Transfer Act.

Fourth, as evidenced by his assertion of indigence in the financial affidavit submitted to the PCC, the transfer was of substantially all of Mr. Coffey's assets.

Therefore, the fact that a divorce court approved the settlement does not necessarily mean that the rights under the settlement were equivalent in value to the parties' rights under the Dissolution Act.

The referenced chapter covers sections 910-916 of the Family Code. that a property division incident to a divorce can constitute a fraudulent conveyance under the UFTA

—explaining how, when considering whether a fraudulent conveyance has occurred, "[s] pecial scrutiny [must be] applied to transfers between spouses where the debtor spouse is thereby rendered insolvent and unable to satisfy the claims of his creditors