C. Randel Lewis, Solely in His Capacity as Receiver, Petitioner v. Steve Taylor, Respondent. — Hart, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Hart dissented from the majority's conclusion that Taylor's profits were not supported by reasonably equivalent value under CUFTA. She would require evaluating each payment individually, including the rights Taylor had under his investment agreement, rather than treating the entire Ponzi scheme as one transaction. Justice Hart would also treat the statutory defense from the perspective of an innocent transferee and would not allow the transferor's concealed misconduct alone to defeat it.