Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571

Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571
Act of Parliament
	Parliament of England
Long title	An Act against Fraudulent Gifts.
Citation	13 Eliz. 1. c. 5
Dates
Royal assent	29 May 1571
Repealed	1 January 1926
Other legislation
Repealed by	Law of Property Act 1925
Status: Repealed
Text of statute as originally enacted

Last updated March 03, 2024

The Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz. 1. c. 5), also known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, was an Act of Parliament in England, which laid the foundations for fraudulent transactions to be unwound when a person had gone insolvent or bankrupt. In the United Kingdom, the provisions contained in the 1571 Act were replaced by Part IX of the Law of Property Act 1925, which has since been replaced by Part XVI of the Insolvency Act 1986.^[1]

Text

For the avoiding of feigned, covinous and fraudulent feoffments, gifts, grants, alienations, bonds, suits, judgments and executions, as well of lands and in tenements, as of goods and chattels, more commonly used and practised in these days than hath been seen or heard of heretofore; which feoffments, gifts, grants etc have been and are devised and contrived of malice, fraud, covin, collusion or guile to the end, purpose and intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, etc; not only to the let or hindrance of the due course and execution of law and justice, but also to the overthrow of all true and plain dealing, bargaining and chevisance between man and man, without the which no commonwealth or civil society can be maintained or continued.
Be it therefore declared, ordained and enacted, that all and every feoffment, gift, grant, alienation, bargain and conveyance of lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods and chattels, or any of them, by writing or otherwise, and all and every bond, suit, judgment and execution at any time had or made to or for any intent or purpose before declared and expressed, shall be from henceforth deemed and taken, only as against that person or persons, his or their heirs, successors, executors, administrators and signs of every of them, whose actions, suits, debts, etc; by such guileful, covinous or fraudulent devices and practices, as is aforesaid, are, shall or might be in anywise disturbed, hindered, delayed or defrauded, to be clearly and utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect, any pretence, color feigned consideration, expressing of use or any other matter or thing to the contrary notwithstanding.
Provided that this act or anything therein contained shall not extend to any estate or interest in land, tenements, hereditaments, leases, rents, commons, profits, goods or chattels, had, made, conveyed or assured, or hereafter to be had, made, conveyed or assured, which estate or interest is or shall be, upon good consideration and bona fide , lawfully conveyed or assured to any person or persons, or bodies politic or corporate, not having at the time of such conveyance or assurance to them made any manner of notice or knowledge of such covin, fraud or collusion as is aforesaid.^[2]

It is clear from the text of the statute that it was framed in a purposive manner. So if someone had the intention of defrauding a creditor, unless a transaction was made bona fide and for good consideration, it would be void.^[1]

Historical background

In 1571, Parliament enacted this statute to prohibit transfers intended to defraud creditors or impede their collection efforts. This statute, known as the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, was passed in response to the widespread use of fraudulent transactions to defeat creditors. Until the 1600s, England had numerous sanctuaries not subject to the King's writ. These sanctuaries included churches but also certain areas defined by custom or royal grant. Debtors would often sell their property to friends or family at unreasonably low prices with the promise of buying it back later, move to a sanctuary, and then wait for creditors to exhaust their efforts or offer a favorable settlement.^[1]

Cases under the Act

Alderson v Temple (1768) (1746–1779) 1 Black W 660, 96 ER 384, Lord Mansfield held the Act applied, not just to fraudulent conveyances, but also the granting of fraudulent preferences. He said a "fraudulent preference by a debtor, if made on the eve of, and followed by, the bankruptcy of the debtor, has been void against his creditors; because it aims at preventing that equal distribution of assets among the creditors, which has always been the object of those laws."
Twyne's Case (1601) 3 Coke 80b, 76 ER 809 held that where a debtor tried to transfer title to property to another party but retained possession of it, that was repugnant to the Act.
Ideal Bedding v Holland [1907] 2 Ch 157, where Kekewich J noted that by virtue of subsequent enactments widening the potential relief available to creditors, the Act had come to apply in a wide variety of circumstances which seemed to be wider than the original intended application as there was more potential for an action to constitute a hindrance upon that entitlement to relief.
Trustee of the property of Pehrsson (a bankrupt) v Von Greyerz [1999] 4 LRC 135: in one of the most recent appellate decisions on the Act, the Privy Council heard an appeal relating to the Act from Gibraltar, where the Act still applies.
Curtis v Price (1806) 12 Ves 89; 33 ER 35; [1803–1813] All ER Rep 220
Ryall v Rolle (1749) 1 Atk 165; 1 Wils 260; 1 Ves Sen 348; 9 Bli NS 377; 26 ER 107; [1558–1774] All ER Rep 82
Daubeny v Cockburn (1816) 1 Mer 626; 35 ER 801; [1814–1823] All ER Rep 604
Doe d Garnons v Knight (1826) 5 B & C 671; 8 Dow & Ry KB 348; 4 LJOSKB 161; 108 ER 250; [1824–1834] All ER Rep 414

Other jurisdictions

United States

Many U.S. states enacted their own versions of the Statute of 13 Elizabeth after the American Revolution. The Act was later superseded by the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances Act of 1918 (UFCA), which in turn was superseded by the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act of 1984 (UFTA). To date, UFTA has been enacted in 43 states and the District of Columbia.^[1]

Both the Bankruptcy Act of 1938 and the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 also included their own versions of the UFCA, thus ensuring that bankruptcy trustees can "avoid" (in other words, reverse) fraudulent transfers made by the bankrupt person within a certain time window before they filed for bankruptcy.

Commonwealth

The laws of England were incorporated into numerous of the colonies on specified dates. In Western Canada for example, the laws of England were incorporated as the laws of the Northwest Territories (now Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) as at 1885. Although most former colonies have passed similar legislation, the 1571 Act may still be in effect in some jurisdictions. All Australian States and Territories and New Zealand received the Statute, and have equivalent provisions.^[3]

Related Research Articles

Bankruptcy is a legal process through which people or other entities who cannot repay debts to creditors may seek relief from some or all of their debts. In most jurisdictions, bankruptcy is imposed by a court order, often initiated by the debtor.

A creditor or lender is a party that has a claim on the services of a second party. It is a person or institution to whom money is owed. The first party, in general, has provided some property or service to the second party under the assumption that the second party will return an equivalent property and service. The second party is frequently called a debtor or borrower. The first party is called the creditor, which is the lender of property, service, or money.

In the United States, bankruptcy is largely governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States". Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, including through adoption of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, as amended, codified in Title 11 of the United States Code and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).

A fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer is the transfer of property to another party to prevent, hinder, or delay the collection of a debt owed by or incumbent on the party making the transfer, sometimes by rendering the transferring party insolvent. It is generally treated as a civil cause of action that arises in debtor/creditor relations, typically brought by creditors or by bankruptcy trustees against insolvent debtors, but in some jurisdictions there is potential for criminal prosecution.

Consumer bankruptcy in Canada is governed by the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act ("BIA"). The legislation is complemented by regulations, as well as directives from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy that provide guidelines to trustees in bankruptcy on various aspects of the BIA.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act is one of the statutes that regulates the law on bankruptcy and insolvency in Canada. It governs bankruptcies, consumer and commercial proposals, and receiverships in Canada.

An unfair preference is a legal term arising in bankruptcy law where a person or company transfers assets or pays a debt to a creditor shortly before going into bankruptcy, that payment or transfer can be set aside on the application of the liquidator or trustee in bankruptcy as an unfair preference or simply a preference.

United Kingdom insolvency law regulates companies in the United Kingdom which are unable to repay their debts. While UK bankruptcy law concerns the rules for natural persons, the term insolvency is generally used for companies formed under the Companies Act 2006. Insolvency means being unable to pay debts. Since the Cork Report of 1982, the modern policy of UK insolvency law has been to attempt to rescue a company that is in difficulty, to minimise losses and fairly distribute the burdens between the community, employees, creditors and other stakeholders that result from enterprise failure. If a company cannot be saved it is liquidated, meaning that the assets are sold off to repay creditors according to their priority. The main sources of law include the Insolvency Act 1986, the Insolvency Rules 1986, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, the Employment Rights Act 1996 Part XII, the EU Insolvency Regulation, and case law. Numerous other Acts, statutory instruments and cases relating to labour, banking, property and conflicts of laws also shape the subject.

Hyatt v. Vincennes Nat. Bank, 113 U.S. 408 (1885), was a case involving the sale of property conveyed to Hyatt for a term of 50 years for all the mineral coal upon and under a described tract of land, in Knox County, Indiana, with the exclusive right to enter on the land to dig for the coal, and remove it, and to occupy with constructions and buildings as needed to obtain the coal. Hyatt would then have the right to remove all buildings or fixtures placed on the land, when the agreement expired, and to pay a fixed royalty for the coal mined.

The collection of judgments in Virginia may be accomplished under a number of routes provided under Virginia law, depending on the amount of the judgment and the particular assets that the judgment creditor wishes to pursue.

The Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate matters relating to bankruptcy and insolvency, by virtue of Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867. It has passed the following statutes as a result:

The history of bankruptcy law begins with the first legal remedies available for recovery of debts. Bankruptcy is the legal status of a legal person unable to repay debts.

Bankruptcy in Irish Law is a legal process, supervised by the High Court whereby the assets of a personal debtor are realised and distributed amongst his or her creditors in cases where the debtor is unable or unwilling to pay his debts.

Fowler v Padget (1798) 7 Term Rep 509; 101 ER 1103 is an old UK insolvency law case, which concerned what amounted to an act of bankruptcy.

Twyne's case (1601) 76 ER 809; 3 Co. Rep. 80b is a UK insolvency law case, concerning a fraudulent conveyance. Representative of earlier English law, it was considered that any transfer of property from a debtor to a creditor, after which the debtor remained in possession of that property, was a fraudulent act intended to defraud creditors. At the time, the law only recognised the mortgage and the pledge. A charge on property in possession of another was not allowed.

A Commissioner of Bankruptcy was, from 1571 to 1883, an official appointed to administer the estate of a bankrupt with full power to dispose of all his lands and tenements. Bankrupts were defined as insolvent persons engaged in trade or business and kept distinct from other insolvents until 1861. The proceedings of that administration were the distribution of the property of an insolvent person to that person's creditors in proportion to the debts.

British Virgin Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in the Insolvency Act, 2003, and to a lesser degree in the Insolvency Rules, 2005. Most of the emphasis of bankruptcy law in the British Virgin Islands relates to corporate insolvency rather than personal bankruptcy. As an offshore financial centre, the British Virgin Islands has many times more resident companies than citizens, and accordingly the courts spend more time dealing with corporate insolvency and reorganisation.

Cayman Islands bankruptcy law is principally codified in five statutes and statutory instruments:

Alderson v Temple (1746-1779) 1 Black W 660, 96 ER 384 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions under what was the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, and what is now the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423.

Anguillan bankruptcy law regulates the position of individuals and companies who are unable to meet their financial obligations.

References

1 2 3 4 Baird, Douglas; Thomas, Jackson (1985). "Fraudulent Conveyance Law and Its Proper Domain". Vanderbilt Law Review. 38 (829). Retrieved 10 August 2017.
↑ Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz. 1. c. 5)
↑ Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal [2012] FCA 1507

External links

Validity of bona fide conveyances by solvent debtors as against prior creditors (1885) American law Register 489

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[Fraud1-1] 1 2 3 4 Baird, Douglas; Thomas, Jackson (1985). "Fraudulent Conveyance Law and Its Proper Domain". Vanderbilt Law Review. 38 (829). Retrieved 10 August 2017.

[2] Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 (13 Eliz. 1. c. 5)

[3] Commissioner of Taxation v Oswal [2012] FCA 1507

[1]

[2]

[3]