,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals

(8) the value of the consideration received by the debtor was reasonably
equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the obligation;
(It is uncontested that the Compliance Depot Units were sold for
$50,000.00 per unit, the same as the original purchase price./ 2
(9) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer
(Invictus had many pre-existing debts prior to the Note and was admittedly
struggling, in part due to the sabotage by Karen Herrera and others).
(1 0) the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt
was incurred;
(The sale of the Compliance Depot Units occurred July 2, 2010. There was
no substantial debt incurred shortly before or after the sale. The Note was
entered into in July of 2009. Invictus had pre-existing debts and
obligations incurred prior to the Note/ 3
(11) the debtor transferred the essential assets of the business to a lienor
(This situation does not apply).
Appellee failed to present evidence of intent under the UFT A factors
sufficient to meet a traditional summary judgment motion burden of proof or even
address these factors. Further, the Affidavit of Appellant and the Affidavit of
Kelly H. Zinser address the factors and create a fact issue. Appellee was not
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and Appellee failed to prove intent as
required under the UFT A.
Appellee also failed to present evidence that Invictus did not receive reasonable
value for the alleged fraudulent transfers.
11 CR. 44
12 SeeCR.184-185.
13 See CR. 184.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 26