Vaidik, C.J.
Case Summary
Raul Hernandez-Velazquez (“Husband”), Modesto Hernandez, and Elizabeth Barcaleta Santiago (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal the trial court’s order requiring the conveyances of certain properties to Sondra Hernandez (“Wife”) to effectuate the division of marital assets in Husband and Wife’s divorce. Specifically, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that Wife is a creditor under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), by finding that Husband conveyed several properties to Elizabeth shortly before the divorce with the intent to defraud Wife, and by setting aside those conveyances. Because the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Wife is a creditor under UFTA and that Husband’s intent was fraudulent, we affirm.
….
Here, the trial court found that there was evidence that Husband’s conveyances to Elizabeth in October 2014 were fraudulent under UFTA. On appeal, Appellants argue that the trial court erred by setting aside these conveyances pursuant to UFTA for two reasons: (1) Wife is not a creditor and (2) there is no evidence of an intent to defraud.
I. Spouse as Creditor
Appellants argue that Wife is not a creditor under UFTA because the “properties were purchased by [Modesto] and [Modesto] had the legal right to direct to whom the properties should be conveyed, in this instance to [Elizabeth].” Appellant’s Br. p. 17.
UFTA defines “creditor” as “a person that has a claim.” I.C. § 32-18-2-2. The trial court found that “[a] spouse is a creditor” and that therefore Wife is a creditor under UFTA. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 28. Appellants argue that Modesto financed the purchases of the properties and that therefore Wife is not a creditor under UFTA. See Appellant’s Br. p. 17. However, there is ample evidence showing that Husband and Wife contributed to the purchases of the properties. First, Husband testified that he had a “good job until 2008.” Tr. Vol. III p. 77. Next, Wife testified that she and Husband used their savings to purchase the properties and credit cards to do the renovations. See Tr. Vol. II p. 73. Wife also testified that during the time she and Husband were purchasing and flipping the properties, the family lived in an apartment paid for by the government and used food stamps to support their daily needs. See id. at 119, 122. Finally, the majority of the properties were initially titled and insured in either Husband or Wife’s name, and the property taxes were paid by Husband and Wife’s business, Sorani Construction. All of this supports the trial court’s finding that the properties are part of the marital estate for purposes of Husband and Wife’s divorce, and therefore Wife is a creditor under UFTA because she has a claim to the properties. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 34.
I. Fraudulent Intent
Appellants next argue that there is no evidence that indicates or suggests that the transfer of the properties from Husband to Elizabeth was made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Wife in any way as required by UFTA.
A creditor who seeks to have a transfer set aside as fraudulent under UFTA bears the burden of proving that such transfer was made with fraudulent intent. Greenfield v. Arden Seven Penn Partners, L.P., 757 N.E.2d 699, 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. The question of fraudulent intent is a question of fact. Id. Lack of consideration alone is not enough to support a charge of fraud. Id. Rather, fraudulent intent may be inferred from various factors or “badges of fraud” present in a given transaction. Id. These common-law factors include:
1. the transfer of property by a debtor during the pendency of a suit;
2. a transfer of property that renders the debtor insolvent or greatly reduces his estate;
3. a series of contemporaneous transactions which strip a debtor of all property available for execution;
4. secret or hurried transactions not in the usual mode of doing business;
5. any transaction conducted in a manner differing from customary methods;
6. a transaction whereby the debtor retains benefits over the transferred property;
7. little or no consideration in return for the transfer;
8. a transfer of property between family members.
Id. (citing Otte v. Otte, 655 N.E.2d 76, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied). As no single indicium constitutes a showing of fraudulent intent per se, the facts must be taken together to determine how many badges of fraud exist and if together they amount to a pattern of fraudulent intent. Id. Indiana’s UFTA has codified these “badges of fraud.” Under UFTA, to determine the debtor’s intent, the trial court may consider, among other factors, whether:
(1) the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer;
(2) the transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed;
(3) before the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit;
(4) the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets;
(5) the debtor absconded;
(6) the debtor removed or concealed assets;
(7) 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 incurred;
(8) the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; and (9) the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.
I.C. § 32-18-2-14.
Here, there are at least five “badges of fraud” present. First, the record shows that Husband transferred the properties to Elizabeth approximately one month before Wife filed for divorce and when the parties’ relationship had already begun to deteriorate. Second, the transfer of these properties greatly reduced the marital estate because the rental properties were substantially all of the family’s assets. Third, there is evidence that Husband would retain some benefits over the rental properties. That is, Husband, Modesto, and Elizabeth, would continue to renovate and manage the properties and collect rent from tenants. Fourth, Husband transferred the properties to Elizabeth for little or no consideration. That is, he transferred all the properties to Elizabeth for ten dollars. Finally, the transfer of these properties from Husband to Elizabeth was effectively a transfer between family members. Although Modesto and Elizabeth have never been married, they have been in a relationship for over thirty years and have three children together. All of this together constitutes a pattern of fraudulent intent.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s setting aside of Husband’s conveyances to Elizabeth.
Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.