While this fraudulent transfer case percolated towards trial, Westen and Lawson declared bankruptcy in Texas and Nagel was able to collect against Westen's and Lawson's annuity in Minnesota. Westen and Lawson argued that it was not a voidable transaction since, they argued, there was no transferee involved and thus there could be no "transfer" as contemplated by the UVTA. The Court of Appeals agreed that the UVTA requires a transfer, but noted that the UVTA never defines the term "transferee" — which meant that the UVTA does not foreclose the possibility that the debtor and the transferee could essentially be one-and-the-same. ANALYSISThere is a lot to unpack here, but let's start with the issue of whether the UVTA requires a transferee. The question then becomes whether the debtor who makes the transfer can also be the transferee who receives the asset.

Source: Forbes January 24, 2021 17:14 UTC