UVTA is an attempt by trial lawyers and pointy-headed liberal law professors to resolve conflict of laws in favor of the state from which transfers are made, effectively ending asset protection as we know it. This is obviously not supported by our legal traditions, and even contradicts a recent holding of the Supreme Court:
The comments of Section 4 of the UVTA imply that such transfers to DAPTs are per se voidable. But, the comments only cite to very old Pennsylvania case law, and as previously stated, comments aren’t law.14 Further, the Supreme Court noted in Schreyer v. Scott that debtors are free to take steps to protect assets from creditors that were neither in existence prior to, nor reasonably anticipated at, the time of transfer.15 Consequently, many advisors are of the opinion that unless specific case law or statutes16 exist in the UVTA state, no public policy argument would exist; furthermore, a lack of DAPT legislation isn’t a public policy argument against the DAPT state. Thus, the DAPT state shouldn’t be required to afford FFC to the domicile state’s judgment even if the comments of the UVTA are adopted.17 However, any states that have adopted or are considering adoption of the UVTA should consider amending and/or removing Section 4, Comment 2 and Section 10 and its comments from the state’s UVTA.