Which takes precedence, conversion or bankruptcy? Suppose Mr. Investor gives $50,000 to Mr. X to invest in his business. And suppose instead of investing in the business, Mr. X gives the $50,000 to his brother, a day or so later. That would be conversion, I believe. And let's assume that this money was easily traceable. Suppose Mr. X later files for personal bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee will want to pull the $50,000 of "fraudulent conveyance" to the brother into the bankruptcy estate. But the investor files a conversion claim for the same amount? Who (the bankruptcy estate or the investor) gets priority on the $50,000 in such a situation? Is there a legal means of determining this?
I'm assuming you're talking about U.S. federal bankruptcy law (Title 11). Once bankruptcy is declared, any claims against the debtor are subject to the bankruptcy laws, and any claims against the debtor in any other court are automatically stayed under 11 USC 362. That means if you bring an action against the debtor for conversion, a court will not hear it, because the debtor's bankruptcy stays any such action. It gets more complicated if you want to sue the brother. In general, except in limited circumstances, the brother is not protected by the bankruptcy stay. [source]. So you can likely sue the brother. Your question about "priority," however, may be based on a misunderstanding of how the law works. If you sue the brother and win, you will get a judgment against the brother, which you can then attempt to collect from the brother's assets. If the trustee convinces a court that the property in question is, in fact, the property of the estate, the trustee can recover it from the brother, or from anyone the brother subsequently gave it to, until it is transferred to a bona fide purchaser for value--who must be unaware of the fraudulent nature of the conveyance. See 11 USC 550. Because you were aware of the fraud, you are not a bona fide purchaser for value, and the statute seems to give the trustee the ability to recover the money from you, just as it would from the brother. In practical terms, this will rarely happen--but if it did, the bankruptcy estate would win, because the avoidance of a transfer means the property was never the brother's in the first place.
Does signing a contract after explaining it was not legally binding count as contract fraud? No. However, depending on the details of the contract, the circumstances, and the parties' subsequent conduct, the donor's ability to prove he actually disclosed it to the couple would strengthen his position. The prima facie elements of fraud are listed in Key Finance, Inc. v. Koon, 371 P.3d 1133, 1137 (2015): (1) a material misrepresentation; (2) known to be false at the time made; (3) made with specific intent that a party would rely on it; and (4) reliance and resulting damage. The donor's disclaimer to the couple "telling them [the contract] was not legally binding" strikes elements (1) and (2). That preempts the relevance of (3). No matter how bizarre it is that the donor eventually bowed to the couple's pressure, that does not change the fact that elements (1) and (2) are stricken. Your description does not reflect whether or how the couple incurred any losses, but the requirement of the couple's reliance is preempted by virtue of the donor's disclaimer. Furthermore, the donor's "history of questionable truthhoods" can only weaken the couple's position of "reasonable" reliance on any representation the donor makes (in case the couple shared back then your concept of donor's reliability). The donor's questionable assertions "[to] further his personal agenda" seems to be irrelevant in this matter because, as you say, "he gained no benefit from the contract". Also, it is unclear from your description whether or not the donor has been sued/charged at all. The donor's mere allegation that he was sued has no legal effect --such as defamation or malicious prosecution-- unless one adds intricate assumptions into this matter. As for "he says the judge chose to 'charge' him", it is possible that he was charged for something else and he is (whether unintentionally or on purpose) mischaracterizing whatever proceedings in which he was involved. The sole act of signing that contract upon proper disclaimer does not render the donor liable for fraud.
Dead people have to pay their debts just like everybody else It is one of the primary roles of the executor to make sure this happens. Dead people can dispute a debt just like everybody else Just because someone says you owe them money, that doesn't mean you owe them money. In fact, the onus of proving the debt lies with the person claiming the money. It is perfectly reasonable for an executor to ask the creditor to do so. Some questions that are appropriate to ask: Presumably, the entitlement arises under a contract; when was the contract entered into? What were its terms? Where is the evidence the deceased agreed to these terms? Do the terms comply with (consumer) law? Have the prices been calculated in accordance with the terms? Have previous invoices been submitted and paid on the same basis? All the issues you mentioned. These are all things the creditor would need to prove if they went to court. If they can provide satisfactory answers to these then pay the bill. If they can't then try to agree to a settlement amount acceptable to both parties. If you can't do that, let them sue the estate and let a judge decide. The debts of the deceased person are payable by the estate of the deceased person for which the executor is the trustee. The executor has a duty to the beneficiaries of the estate to act in their best interest. This means paying bills that they are satisfied are justified, contesting those that aren't but ultimately, making commercial decisions that benefit the beneficiaries. Getting bogged down in a court case may not be in their best interest especially if it delays finalisation of the estate. In any event, the executor is not liable personally for the debt, or for anything they do or fail to do if done or not done in good faith.
It first depends on what state you are dealing with. This expression shows up in standard forms in Georgia, where it is not defined. You can read the associated statutes (Georgia Code, Title 53) especially the definitions, and it won't tell you. The probate court rules also don't tell you. So in Georgia, it would be &quot;what a reasonable person would conclude&quot; (good luck there). Searching for legal blogs that might give a hint, this article refers to &quot;Significant assets that are solely titled to the decedent- property, automobiles, boats, homes&quot;, which seems obvious – they don't suggest a lower value, because that is not legally determined and they don't want to get in trouble for advising that $1,000 (or $500) is &quot;an insignificant value&quot;. The purpose of the form is to put beneficiaries on notice as to what is at stake, and for purposes of that form, it is an estimate, not a binding promise. You have pretty much identified the indeterminacy of the law (in Georgia).
We don't want this issue to adversely affect our credit and got legal consulting which suggested we should pay the debt collector to protect our credit score, and then sue the landlord for the money back in small claims court. I'm a little worried about this strategy since it requires to hand away the money first, and am trying to get second opinions. The debt collector is probably either the owner of the claim against you, if it is an assignee of the claim, or an agent of the landlord for purposes of collection. Thus, payment to the debt collector is equivalent to payment of the landlord. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction regarding whether payment constitutes of waiver of a right to sue over the debt. Sometimes it is necessary to designate the payment "under protests" or "reserving all rights", but that is not a uniform rule of law that applies in all jurisdictions, and I do not have the time and familiarity with that state's law to research Massachusetts case law on that point accurately.
Since Alice uses &quot;CASH ACCOUNTING&quot; expenses are accounted for when they are paid by her, not when someone else receives it. So in your hypothetical, when she initiated the transfer would be the date that the payment is considered to be made. On the other hand, &quot;ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING&quot; means that Alice would account for the expense when it was made. Generally this would be earlier than the CASH date. But either way, she would account for it in 2022 based on what you said above.
I think that you are distorting the legal situation by describing it as a debt denominated in XYZcoins. According to the LII page &quot;Debt&quot;: Debt is a financial liability or obligation owed by one person, the debtor, to another, the creditor. Note that a debt is a financial liability. That means that it is payable in money, in some recognized currency. In the XYZcoin case, there is not a debt, but a contract of exchange. It can only be satisfied by handing over the cryptocurrency specified in the agreement, unless the parties agree to change that. When a person signs a contract to sell a house, for example, that person does not owe a debt denominated in houses. Rather, that person has agreed to deed over a specific house on specific terms. If the seller refuses to close the deal and the would-be buyer brings a legal action, the judge may order specific performance, that is, order the seller to sign the papers needed to transfer title to that specific house. A similar remedy may be available on a contract to sell a painting or other object that is unique, and cannot be replaced easily by a different object of the same type. Something similar may occur with a contract to sell or trade stocks not listed on any exchange, where there is no clear market value, and the purchaser wants shares in that particular company, not a sum of money.
In general, the law seeks to make all parties whole. There is no mechanism for profit-sharing between thieves and their victims. Victims of theft are entitled to receive their money back plus the applicable rate of interest (called the judgment rate). They are not entitled to profits or windfalls above and beyond the statutory judgment rate of interest. What if the act of stealing the money has destroyed the owner's business and has left him with a lot of debt and bankrupt? Criminal statutes provide for the return of stolen funds plus interest. Recovery of damages, as you describe, is provided by civil statutes and common law. So, to recover damages, the victim would need to sue the thief in civil court.