UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT
651C-4 Transfers fraudulent as to present and future creditors
651C-5 Transfers fraudulent as to present creditors
651C-6 When transfer is made or obligation is incurred
651C-7 Remedies of creditors
651C-8 Defenses, liability, and protection of transferee
651C-9 Extinguishment of cause of action
651C-10 Supplement of provisions
Law Journals and Reviews
The "ABCs" of Hawaii's Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Law. 13 HBJ, no. 13, at 127 (2009).
Where a creditor alleges a fraudulent transfer of property from a judgment debtor to a transferee who retains title to the subject property or who claims an interest in the property or its proceeds, the transferee is a necessary party to any action seeking to set aside the transfer. Such an action for relief against a transfer alleged to be fraudulent should be brought pursuant to this chapter, and should expressly name as defendants the alleged fraudulent transferees. 76 H. 32, 868 P.2d 450 (1994).
Although Hawaii's uniform fraudulent transfer act does not preclude preferential transfers per se, if the preferential transfer was made with "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor" the transfer will be deemed fraudulent. 113 H. 174, 150 P.3d 823 (2006).
Where developer did not seek to directly obtain title to, or possession of, property, but rather sought to avoid the transfer of the property owner's and lessee's interest in the property for the purpose of securing payment of money which might potentially be owed if developer succeeded on its counterclaims, the developer's claim under this chapter was asserted for a purpose which was rejected as a basis for a lis pendens under §634-51; thus, circuit court did not abuse its discretion in granting county's motion to expunge developer's lis pendens. 128 H. 378 (App.), 289 P.3d 1014 (2012).
Petitioners were entitled to a variety of means (§§651C-7, 651C-8, and 651C-10) to secure a full recovery of their losses from respondent and/or the asset fraudulently transferred to respondent, but only once, not twice; moreover, nothing in this chapter requires petitioners to elect one remedy over another. This chapter does not, however, allow petitioners recovery of both the asset transferred (regardless of its value) and, in addition, a judgment in the full amount of their damages. 130 H. 58 (App.), 305 P.3d 474 (2013).