Supreme Court of California
31 Cal. 4th 657 (2003)
Danilo Reed (defendant) and Violeta Reed were married. In 1994, Danilo had an affair with Rhina Mejia (plaintiff). In February 1995, Danilo and Rhina had a child together. In May 1995, Violeta filed for divorce from Danilo. Danilo and Violeta entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Danilo conveyed his interest in the couple’s real estate to Violeta. Violeta conveyed her interest in Danilo’s medical practice to Danilo. Danilo was solely responsible for any child-support obligations owed. In 1997, Danilo deserted his medical practice, moved in with his mother, and generated little income. During this time, Rhina had a pending paternity suit against Danilo. Rhina filed suit claiming that the MSA was a fraudulent transfer of property between Danilo and Violeta. Danilo filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on Rhina’s failure to prove that there was intent to defraud Rhina when the transfer was made. There was conflicting evidence regarding the value of Danilo’s medical practice. The trial court presumed that the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) applied to the MSA but granted Danilo’s motion for summary judgment because there was no evidence of intent to defraud. Rhina appealed. The court of appeals held that the UFTA applied to marital settlement agreements. The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision because there were genuine issues of material fact. Danilo petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review. Due to a split of authority among the courts of appeals, the Supreme Court of California granted review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kennard, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.