Dahnken v. Harold Wilmarth

The defendant, Harold Wilmarth, contests the judgment of the district court which held an assignment of a real estate contract by H. C. Davis to Davis stepfather, Harold Wilmarth, to be a fraudulent conveyance and therefore void under the Utah Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Wilmarth alleges three errors by the trial court: (1) that the evidence did not support the trial courts finding that the assignment was fraudulent pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, § 25-1-4 (1984 ed.) of the Utah Fraudulent Conveyance Act because it was made without fair consideration, (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to admit as exhibits checks written by Wilmarth to various business enterprises, and (3) that the evidence does not support the trial courts finding that the assignment was fraudulent pursuant to § 25-1-7 of the Act because it was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud Davis creditors. We find Wilmarths claims on appeal to be without merit and affirm.