Skip to main content

We have a FiFa against a person who executed a quit claim deed on real estate to a second party (spouse).

Atlanta, GA |

Person A and person B were married and owned real estate. We had a judgment and FiFa against Person A. Less than a year after issue, Person A quit-claimed the real estate to Person B (by the way, no other liens).

Person B then executes a warranty deed to Person C (a relative).

FiFa was issued in 1996. The appropriate renewals were properly done in 2003 and 2010.

The quit claim was executed in 1997.

The warranty deed was executed from Person B to Person C in 2001.

Is there a statute of limitation to bring an action in this matter, and if not, what is the actual cause of action to restore the title to Person A in order to execute the FiFa, or can the FiFa still be executed against the real estate after the title has transferred ?

Attorney Answers 2

Posted

Your statute of limitations has expired. OCGA 18-2-79.

A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer or obligation under this article is extinguished unless action is brought:
(1) Under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of Code Section 18-2-74, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was or could reasonably have been discovered by the claimant;
(2) Under paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of Code Section 18-2-74 or subsection (a) of Code Section 18-2-75, within four years after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; or
(3) Under subsection (b) of Code Section 18-2-75, within one year after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.

This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship with Eric Brent Coleman or Winter Capriola Zenner, LLC. In order to create an attorney-client relationship with Eric Brent Coleman or Winter Capriola Zenner, LLC, you must enter into a written agreement that we both sign, and in the absence of such an agreement, you are not my client or a client of my firm. The foregoing is not intended to be, and should not be construed as "legal advice," but rather is my analysis based on the limited information provided. It's purpose is not to guide you in your actions, but rather to contribute to the educational environment of AVVO. Should you wish to have representation in this matter, please contact me at ecoleman@wczlaw.net so that I may fully evaluate your situation before providing any "legal advice."

Mark as helpful

1 found this helpful

1 comment

Asker

Posted

Thank you. I have been telling my client that he waited too long to engage my investigation and collection services on this particular account. I had difficulty finding the code to show him he's out of luck moving against the RE or the "fraudulent conveyance" issue, so I appreciate the cite. This is a person who didn't even work his bad debt for anywhere from 7 to 20 years and merely renewed his FiFa's hoping that I can now wave a magic wand for him. I'm grateful for the above replies.

Posted

The cause of action would likely be for a "fraudulent conveyance" with an allegation that the transfer was intended to hinder your collection actions. I'm not sure of the statutue of limitations on such action, but if the transaction occured in 1997, I doubt the statute of limitations would be as long as 15 years. In addition to a statue of limitations defense (and in additon to any other defenses), the defendant would have the defense of "latches," which is basically saying that you waited too long to excercise your rights.

[This communication is intended as general information and not specific legal advice, and this communication does not create an attorney-client relationship.]

Mark as helpful

1 found this helpful

1 lawyer agrees

1 comment

Asker

Posted

Well, this goes 180 degrees in the other direction from what another RE attorney has told me. First of all, he advises that "laches" doesn't apply, as long as there was a valid FiFa in place and had been revitalized every 7 years. He claims the FiFa follows the real estate. I disagree. The suit is against a PERSON and the FiFa subjects that person's property to seizure. If the person conveys the property, they no longer own it. Hopefully, I'll get another reply, so it can outnumber the other attorney. I don't see the logic in his answer, but I do in yours.

Real estate topics

Top tips from attorneys

What others are asking

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Ask a Question

- or -

Search for lawyers by reviews and ratings.

Find a Lawyer

Browse all legal topics