2010-04-15_County_of_Hawaii_Motion_to_Dismiss_Counter_Claim_to_Expunge_Lis_Pendens

Home

Defendants were never entitled to a superior interest in the property and their meritless claims do not create a superior interest. Therefore, as a matter of law, Defendants could not have been injured as a result of the transfer on April 22, 2009. Courts across the county have resoundingly rejected providing any relief to a "creditor" who has not suffered injury as a result of a transfer. A transfer in fraud of creditors may be attacked only by one who is injured thereby...It cannot be said that a creditor has been injured unless the transfer puts beyond her reach property she otherwise would be able to subject to the payment of her debt. Mehrtash v. Mehrtash, 93 Cal.App.41h 75, 80 (2001). In Mehrtash,the Court refused relief under the fraudulent conveyance claim because the property was already subject to several encumbrances. The Court noted that plaintiff failed to prove she was entitled to equitable relief and the law does not require"idle acts". Id. at 80. Similarly, in AIS Kreditt-Finans v. Cia Venetico De Navegacion, 560 F.Supp.705 (E.D. Pa. 1983), affirmed, 729 F.2d 1446(3rd. Cir. 1984), the Court noted that the property which was subject to various encumbrances. The Court ruled that in order to be entitled to relief under the fraudulent conveyance act, the creditor had to demonstrate"proof of injury". Id. at 711. The Court noted "moreover, numerous courts in other jurisdictions in which the issue has arisen have stated as though it were axiomatic the requirement that a creditor be injured by the conveyance it seeks to invalidate." Id. The Court noted it was important to interpret the fraudulent conveyance act consistently throughout the nation: Because business throughout this country largely disregards State lines, the purpose of a uniform law on the subject of fraudulent conveyances was to enable lenders to know with certainty that they could rely upon the property of their debtors, though situated in another State [citation omitted]. Accordingly, in construing a provision of the Uniform Act we should, whenever possible, respect the decisions of the courts of other jurisdictions where it is in force, with a view to ensuring a harmonious national interpretation. 11