Fraudulent Transfers and Conveyances

ORS 95.260
Creditor’s remedies


(1)

In any action for relief against a transfer or obligation under ORS 95.200 (Definitions for ORS 95.200 to 95.310) to 95.310 (Short title), a creditor, subject to the limitations provided in ORS 95.270 (Transferee’s defenses, liability and protections), may obtain:

(a)

Avoidance of the transfer or obligation to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditor’s claim.

(b)

An attachment or other provisional remedy against the asset transferred or other property of the transferee in accordance with the procedure prescribed by any applicable provision of any other statute or the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure.

(c)

Subject to applicable principles of equity and in accordance with applicable rules of civil procedure:

(A)

An injunction against further disposition by the debtor or a transferee, or both, of the asset transferred or of other property;

(B)

Appointment of a receiver to take charge of the asset transferred or of other property of the transferee; or

(C)

Any other relief the circumstances may require.

(2)

If a creditor has obtained a judgment on a claim against the debtor and if the court so orders, the creditor may levy execution on the asset transferred or its proceeds. [1985 c.664 §7]

Notes of Decisions

Property purchased from income earned by combined use of transferred asset and other non-transferred elements was not subject to levy as proceed of transferred asset. Cadle Co. II v. Schellman, 126 Or App 372, 868 P2d 773 (1994)

Court may allow post-judgment amendment of pleadings to join nonparty to extent necessary to enforce judgment by levying execution on assets fraudulently conveyed to nonparty. Jones v. North West Telemarketing, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Or. 2001)

§§ 95.200 to 95.310

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff brought products liability action against corporation and holding company entirely owned by former shareholders of corporation for asbestos related injury, corporate restructuring resulting in formation of holding company was designed for improper purpose of escaping asbestos related liabilities and holding company was successor in liability and responsible for corporations' strict liability torts. Schmoll v. Acands, Inc., 703 F Supp 868 (D. Or. 1988)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021