BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Goldberg - Affidavit of Solvency Allows Asset Protection Attorney To Keep Fees Against Fraudulent Transfer Claim

Following
This article is more than 10 years old.

In the middle of litigation that was starting to look unfavorable, the Debtor went to Attorney who set the Debtor up in an offshore asset protection trust a/k/a a foreign asset protection trust ("FAPT") in the Cook Islands. Rosen charged the Debtor $45,000 in fees and costs to set up the FAPT.

The Debtor then transferred $400,000 into the FAPT. But soon thereafter, the Debtor had a change of heart and repatriated $325,000 back to Florida which was used to pay down the mortgages on her home. The Debtor then -- admittedly out of fear of contempt -- closed down the FAPT and brought back the rest of the money.

The Debtor's fears about the outcome of the litigation proved to be well-founded, and a $2.9 million judgment was entered against her in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Debtor then filed for bankruptcy protection.

The Bankruptcy Trustee sued Attorney and his law firm to recover the $45,000 and alleged that the money paid by the debtor to Rosen was a fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. sec. 548, and also amounted to malpractice and unjust enrichment by Attorney.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court then held a bench trial. The Trustee put on only one witness -- the Debtor -- and no expert witness on the malpractice claim.

For her part, the Debtor testified that she was insolvent at the time of the transfers, but she was impeached with an Affidavit of Solvency whereby she had sworn otherwise under oath. This was successful, as the Bankruptcy Judge commented:

While, I never found any evidence about legal malpractice, I'm looking for what could possibly be argued as unjust enrichment. As to the constructive fraud, fraudulent transfer, the Court thinks it's abundantly clear that there's been no establishment of insolvency.

In fact, the record is abundant with records of solvency. The witness signed a solvency affidavit, which she said she did not read, but the Court notes—noted that the witness could remember some things in the way of financial numbers of a rather complicated structure down to the penny, and other things, she couldn't remember at all.

But aside from that, it's the opinion of the Court that the plaintiff's case is woefully lacking in any proof on any of the counts, and, therefore, the motion to dismiss should be granted.

On appeal from the bankruptcy court to the U.S. District Court, the District Judge agreed that the Bankruptcy Trustee's evidence to support his claims was "woefully lacking", and the appeal at that level was denied. The Bankruptcy Trustee then took the matter up to the Eleventh Circuit, who also found that the Bankruptcy Trustee utterly failed in proving his case, holding simply:

The bankruptcy court heard the Debtor's testimony and discredited it. This is entirely within its province. * * * Further, the record supported a finding that the Debtor was solvent at the time of the transfer so that the bankruptcy court was entitled to make such a finding.

And with that, Attorney was able to keep his attorney fees and costs.

ANALYSIS

This is one of the very few asset protection cases to have directly considered the so-called Affidavit of Solvency that is so frequently used by planners. As such, it is a very important opinion.

The effectiveness of Affidavits of Solvency has long been disputed. Some would say that such Affidavits are self-serving hearsay, and as such will be likely be inadmissible or not given much weight by the courts. Others would retort that at the very least such Affidavits can be an effective memorial of the assets and liabilities that a debtor had at the time that planning was implemented, and might be admissible under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule.

That debate will have to continue, since this case did not involve the debtor trying to use the Affidavit of Solvency in her defense.

There has, however, been general agreement that whether or not Affidavits of Solvency protect the debtor, they can still be very useful to protect the planner from such claims as the Bankruptcy Trustee asserted here. This Opinion is proof positive of that benefit.

Affidavits of Solvency are important to planners because, frankly, clients can lie. Clients can negligently or intentionally mislead their planners about what assets they have when they commence their planning, but much more often they just lie outright about the liabilities they are facing when they seek asset protection planning. It is not at all uncommon for financially distressed clients to tell planners that "all is rosy" when in fact they know that dark clouds are forming on their horizon (and often when they know the tornado sirens are already blowing).

Frankly, if you have never had a client lie to you about their prospective liabilities, then you probably haven't been doing much asset protection planning -- it is just that frequent and a common hazard of this area of planning. Desperate clients will claim that noose around their neck is really a bead of valuable pearls. If you are not getting something from your clients that you can use to impeach them with later, you are simply making yourself a target for future litigation where you are the defendant.

There is another important, and probably more practical, aspect to this case which is the slipshod manner by which the Bankruptcy Trustee attempted to prove up his fraudulent transfer case. These are not simple actions which can be "phoned in" with just one witness, but typically require detailed proof of things such as insolvency and lack of reasonably equivalent value. A good litigator would have realized that the Debtor's credibility would inherently be compromised, and been prepared to offer other witnesses (such as a forensic accountant) to lay out the facts from the cold, hard documents. Contrary to what many creditors who are unfamiliar with fraudulent transfer actions seem to think, you just can't shout "fraudulent transfer" and Court's cornucopia of available remedies begins to pour.

CITE AS

Goldberg v. Rosen, 2012 WL 4933299 (11th Cir., Unpublished, Oct. 17, 2012). Full Opinion at http://goo.gl/lEv4G

This article at http://onforb.es/Tol2HN and http://goo.gl/r4AR6