Law School

Avoidance actions. Debtors, or the trustees that represent them, gain the ability to reject, or avoid actions taken with respect to the debtor's property for a specified time prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. While the details of avoidance actions are nuanced, there are three general categories of avoidance actions: Preferences: 11 U.S.C. § 547. Federal fraudulent transfer: 11 U.S.C. § 548. Non-bankruptcy law creditor: 11 U.S.C. § 544. All avoidance actions attempt to limit the risk of the legal system accelerating the financial demise of a financially unstable debtor who has not yet declared bankruptcy. The bankruptcy system generally endeavors to reward creditors who continue to extend financing to debtors and discourage creditors from accelerating their debt collection efforts. Avoidance actions are some of the most obvious of the mechanisms to encourage this goal. Despite the apparent simplicity of these rules, a number of exceptions exist in the context of each category of avoidance action. Preferences. Preference actions generally permit the trustee to avoid (that is, to void an otherwise legally binding transaction) certain transfers of the debtor's property that benefit creditors where the transfers occur on or within 90 days of the date of filing of the bankruptcy petition. For example, if a debtor has a debt to a friendly creditor and a debt to an unfriendly creditor, and pays the friendly creditor, and then declares bankruptcy one week later, the trustee may be able to recover the money paid to the friendly creditor under 11 U.S.C. § 547. While this "reach back" period typically extends 90 days backwards from the date of the bankruptcy, the amount of time is longer in the case of "insiders"—typically one year. Insiders include family and close business contacts of the debtor. Fraudulent transfer. Bankruptcy fraudulent transfer law is similar in practice to non-bankruptcy fraudulent transfer law. Some terms, however, are more generous in bankruptcy than they are otherwise. For instance, the statute of limitations within bankruptcy is two years as opposed to a shorter time frame in some non-bankruptcy contexts. Generally a fraudulent transfer action operates in much the same way as a preference avoidance. Fraudulent transfer actions, however, sometimes require a showing of intent to shelter the property from a creditor. Fraudulent transfer may involve an actual or a "constructive" fraud. Actual fraud is based upon the intent of the transfer, whereas constructive fraud may be inferred based upon economic factors. Factors that may lead to an inference of fraud include whether the transfer was for reasonably equivalent value and whether the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer. The conversion of nonexempt assets into exempt assets on the eve of bankruptcy is not an indicator of fraud per se. However, depending on the amount of the exemption and the circumstances surrounding the conversion, a court may find the conversion to be a fraudulent transfer. This is especially true when the conversion amounts to nothing more than a temporary arrangement. When finding the conversion of nonexempt into exempt assets to be a fraudulent transfer, courts tend to focus on the existence of an independent reason for the conversion. For example, if a debtor purchased a residence protected by a homestead exemption with the intent to reside in such residence that would be an allowable conversion into nonexempt property. But where the debtor purchased the residence with all of their available funds, leaving no money to live off, that presumed that the conversion was temporary, indicating a fraudulent transfer. Courts look at the timing of the transfer as the most important factor.

In the United States, variances in the insanity defense between states, and in the federal court system, are attributable to differences with respect to three key issues: Availability: whether the jurisdiction allows a defendant to raise the insanity defense, Definition: when the defense is available, what facts will support a finding of insanity, and Burden of proof: whether the defendant has the duty of proving insanity or the prosecutor has the duty of disproving insanity, and by what standard of proof. In Foucha v Louisiana (1992) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a person could not be held "indefinitely" for psychiatric treatment following a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. Availability. In the United States, a criminal defendant may plead insanity in federal court, and in the state courts of every state except for Idaho, Kansas, Montana, and Utah. However, defendants in states that disallow the insanity defense may still be able to demonstrate that a defendant was not capable of forming intent to commit a crime as a result of mental illness. In Kahler v Kansas (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 6–3 ruling, that a state does not violate the Due Process Clause by abolishing an insanity defense based on a defendant's incapacity to distinguish right from wrong. The Court emphasized that state governments have broad discretion to choose laws defining "the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness." Definition. Each state and the federal court system currently uses one of the following "tests" to define insanity for purposes of the insanity defense. Over its decades of use the definition of insanity has been modified by statute, with changes to the availability of the insanity defense, what constitutes legal insanity, whether the prosecutor or defendant has the burden of proof, the standard of proof required at trial, trial procedures, and to commitment and release procedures for defendants who have been acquitted based on a finding of insanity. M'Naghten test. The guidelines for the M'Naghten Rules, state, among other things, and evaluating the criminal responsibility for defendants claiming to be insane were settled in the British courts in the case of Daniel M'Naghten in 1843. M'Naghten was a Scottish woodcutter who killed the secretary to the prime minister, Edward Drummond, in a botched attempt to assassinate the prime minister himself. M'Naghten apparently believed that the prime minister was the architect of the myriad of personal and financial misfortunes that had befallen him. During his trial, nine witnesses testified to the fact that he was insane, and the jury acquitted him, finding him "not guilty by reason of insanity". The House of Lords asked the judges of the common law courts to answer five questions on insanity as a criminal defense, and the formulation that emerged from their review—that a defendant should not be held responsible for their actions only if, as a result of their mental disease or defect, they (1) did not know that their act would be wrong; or (2) did not understand the nature and quality of their actions—became the basis of the law governing legal responsibility in cases of insanity in England. Under the rules, loss of control because of mental illness was no defense. The M'Naghten rule was embraced with almost no modification by American courts and legislatures for more than 100 years, until the mid-20th century.

A resulting trust is an implied trust that comes into existence by operation of law, where property is transferred to someone who pays nothing for it; and then is implied to have held the property for the benefit of another person. The trust property is said to "result" or jump back to the transferor (implied settlor). In this instance, the word 'result' means "in the result, remains with", or something similar to "revert" except that in the result the beneficial interest is held on trust for the settlor. Not all trusts whose beneficiary is also the settlor can be called resulting trusts. In common law systems, the resulting trust refers to a subset of trusts which have such outcome; express trusts which stipulate that the settlor is to be the beneficiary are not normally considered resulting trusts. Another understanding of resulting trusts could be an equitable instrument used to rectify and reverse unjust enrichment. The beneficial interest results in the settlor, or if the settlor has died the property forms part of the settlor's estate (intestacy). It remains with the person and the case of "Vandervell v Inland Reveneue Commissioners" (1967) shows that only the beneficial interest disappears but not the beneficiary interest. Closely-related parties. Some jurisdictions may establish a rebuttable presumption of gift for property transfers between relatives. The presumption may operate as an affirmative defense to a petition to establish a resulting trust implied by operation of law as it is. The law presumes that it is legitimate to transfer property to a family member, particularly for a relative's support. But an unrelated transferee who receives substantial value without consideration is ordinarily presumed to hold the property in trust for the benefit of the transferor, unless it can be proven by them that it was intended to be a gift. The rebuttable presumption of gift affects transfers between siblings, uncles, aunts, children, and grandchildren. A notable exception to the presumption of gift is the transfer of property between husband and wife (transmutations). The marital exception to presumption of gift arises from the fiduciary duty that spouses owe to one another. Spouses have a special trusted relationship that imputes an obligation of utmost good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, spouses are deemed incapable of transmutation except under specified circumstances, such as when making an EXPRESS DECLARATION of transmutation as by clear statement in a deed or other writing of substantial dignity. Unlawful purpose. In common law jurisdictions, a resulting trust law is a creation of the law of equity, rather than of common law (in the strict sense). Accordingly, the laws of some jurisdictions might recognize equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and the responsibility to do equity. For example, if a transferor transfers property for an unlawful purpose and gains a benefit, then a court might hold that he has waived his right to claim a resulting trust. In such situations, a court balances the transferee's unjust enrichment with the enablement of cheating by the transferor. Enabling a cheater to gain from his transaction would erode the legitimacy of the court. Other jurisdictions may elect to disregard an unlawful purpose. In situations involving illegality, it can become difficult to distinguish implementation of a resulting trust theory (implied by operation of law) from an oral express trust (one implied by the facts). A transferor failing upon one theory might still prevail upon the other.

A sham marriage or fake marriage is a marriage of convenience entered into without intending to create a real marital relationship. This is usually for the purpose of gaining an advantage from the marriage. Definitions of sham marriage vary by jurisdiction, but are often related to immigration. The essential point in the varying definitions is whether the couple intend to live in a real marital relationship, to establish a life together. A typical definition by the UK Home Office in 2015: A sham marriage or civil partnership is one where the relationship is not genuine but one party hopes to gain an immigration advantage from it. There is no subsisting relationship, dependency, or intent to live as husband and wife or civil partners. While referred to as a "sham" or "fake" because of its motivation, the union itself is legally valid if it conforms to the formal legal requirements for marriage in the jurisdiction. Arranging or entering into such a marriage to deceive public officials is in itself a violation of the law of some countries, for example the US. After a period, couples often divorce if there is no purpose in remaining married. The reverse situation, in which a couple gets a divorce while continuing to live together, is called paper divorce. Marriage fraud. Sham marriages are sometimes considered distinct from a marriage fraud, which is a type of romance scam, in which one spouse is unwittingly taken advantage of by the foreign spouse who feigns romantic interest, typically in order to obtain a residence permit or for money. Background. Common reasons for sham marriages are to gain immigration, residency, work, or citizenship rights for one of the spouses. There have been cases of people entering into a sham marriage to avoid suspicion of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. For example, Hollywood studios had allegedly requested homosexual or homoromantic actors, such as Rock Hudson, to conceal their homosexuality in a so-called lavender marriage. Fraud. Since the introduction of stricter modern immigration laws in First World countries, sham marriages have become a common method to allow a foreigner to reside, and possibly gain citizenship, in the more desirable country of the spouse. The couple marries with knowledge that the marriage is solely for the purpose of obtaining the favorable immigration status, and without intending to live as a couple. This is frequently arranged as a business transaction with payment of a sum of money, and occurs more commonly with foreigners already in the country. United States. A green card marriage is a marriage of convenience between a legal resident of the United States of America and a person who would be ineligible for residency if they were not being married to the resident. The term derives from the availability of permanent resident documents ("green cards") for spouses of legal residents in the United States, where marriage is one of the fastest and surest ways to obtain legal residence. Marriages, if legitimate, entitle the spouse to live and work in the United States, as in most other countries. In the United States, 2.3 million marriage visas were approved from 1998 through 2007, representing 25% of all green cards in 2007. Even if the non-resident spouse was previously an illegal immigrant, marriage entitles the spouse to residency. Most marriages between residents and non-residents are undertaken properly, for reasons other than or in addition to residency status. That said, the practice of obtaining residency through marriage is illegal in the United States if the marriage itself is fraudulent. A marriage that is solely for purposes of obtaining legal residence is considered a sham, and is a crime in the United States for both participants.

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size.

bankruptcy. In the United States, bankruptcy is largely governed by federal law, commonly referred to as the "Bankruptcy Code" ("Code"). The United States Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) 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. Some laws relevant to bankruptcy are found in other parts of the United States Code. For example, bankruptcy crimes are found in Title 18 of the United States Code (Crimes). Tax implications of bankruptcy are found in Title 26 of the United States Code (Internal Revenue Code), and the creation and jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts are found in Title 28 of the United States Code (Judiciary and Judicial procedure). Bankruptcy cases are filed in United States bankruptcy court (units of the United States District Courts), and federal law governs procedure in bankruptcy cases. However, state laws are often applied to determine how bankruptcy affects the property rights of debtors. For example, laws governing the validity of liens or rules protecting certain property from creditors (known as exemptions), may derive from state law or federal law. Because state law plays a major role in many bankruptcy cases, it is often unwise to generalize some bankruptcy issues across state lines. History. Originally, bankruptcy in the United States, as nearly all matters directly concerning individual citizens, was a subject of state law. However, there were several short-lived federal bankruptcy laws before the Act of 1898: the Bankruptcy Act of 1800, which was repealed in 1803; the Act of 1841, which was repealed in 1843; and the Act of 1867, which was amended in 1874 and repealed in 1878. The first more lasting federal bankruptcy law, sometimes called the "Nelson Act", initially entered into force in 1898. The current Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 1978 by § 101 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, and generally became effective on October 1, 1979; it completely replaced the former bankruptcy law, the "Chandler Act" of 1938, which had given unprecedented power to the Securities and Exchange Commission for the regulation of bankruptcy filings. The current code has been amended numerous times since 1978. See also the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Chapters of the Bankruptcy Code. Entities seeking relief under the Bankruptcy Code may file a petition for relief under a number of different chapters of the Code, depending on circumstances. Title 11 contains nine chapters, six of which provide for the filing of a petition. The other three chapters provide rules governing bankruptcy cases in general. A case is typically referred to by the chapter under which the petition is filed. These chapters are described below. Chapter 7: Liquidation. Liquidation under a Chapter 7 filing is the most common form of bankruptcy. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Because all states allow for debtors to keep essential property, Chapter 7 cases are often "no asset" cases, meaning that the bankrupt estate has no non-exempt assets to fund a distribution to creditors. Chapter 7 bankruptcy remains on a bankruptcy filer's credit report for 10 years. United States bankruptcy law significantly changed in 2005 with the passage of Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (US) —- BAPCPA, which made it more difficult for consumer debtors to file bankruptcy in general and Chapter 7 in particular.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self-defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others. Exemption from full criminal punishment on such ground's dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi. Legal definitions of insanity or mental disorder are varied, and include the M'Naghten Rule, the Durham rule, the 1953 British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment report, the ALI rule (American Legal Institute Model Penal Code rule), and other provisions, often relating to a lack of mens rea ("guilty mind").  In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, statutory legislation enshrines the M'Naghten Rules, with the terms defense of mental disorder, defense of mental illness or not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder employed. Being incapable of distinguishing right from wrong is one basis for being found to be legally insane as a criminal defense. It originated in the M'Naghten Rule, and has been reinterpreted and modernized through more recent cases, such as People v Serravo. In the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the United States, use of the defense is rare. Mitigating factors, including things not eligible for the insanity defense such as intoxication and partial defenses such as diminished capacity and provocation, are used more frequently. The defense is based on evaluations by forensic mental health professionals with the appropriate test according to the jurisdiction. Their testimony guides the jury, but they are not allowed to testify to the accused's criminal responsibility, as this is a matter for the jury to decide. Similarly, mental health practitioners are restrained from making a judgment on the "ultimate issue"—whether the defendant is insane. Some jurisdictions require the evaluation to address the defendant's ability to control their behavior at the time of the offense (the volitional limb). A defendant claiming the defense is pleading "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI) or "guilty but insane or mentally ill" in some jurisdictions which, if successful, may result in the defendant being committed to a psychiatric facility for an indeterminate period.

Presumptive resulting trusts. These are transfers made by A to B, where the law creates a rebuttable presumption of a resulting trust applying if the intention is not made clear by A. (written evidence produced). For example, when A transfers property to B, unless the transfer was made by father to child or by husband to wife, in the absence of any other evidence the law presumes that a resulting trust has been created for A.(Y this category excluded: for example:A evidence cannot stand in Course of testimony & remains Hearsay)(A will not get the property if H&W & F&C can adduce evidence it is their property and resulting trust will not arise. The main categories of fact situations giving rise to a presumption of a resulting trust are: - Where A makes a voluntary conveyance of property to B - Where A has made a monetary contribution to the purchase of property for B. From these cases it can be stated that where there is a voluntary transfer of property, the law presumes the recipient holds that property on resulting trust, until the property is transferred back to the original owner, unless the recipient can show a gift was intended. The presumptions are, however, easily rebutted. In Fowkes v Pascoe, evidence was shown that a woman had purchased stock in the names of herself and her grandson; evidence by the grandson and granddaughter-in-law that this had been done as a gift was admissible. On the other hand, the presumption is solely concerned with evidence of an intent to create a trust; ulterior motives to create a trust are not taken into account. In Tinsley v Milligan, a woman transferred property to her business partner on trust in order to fraudulently claim social security payments; it was held that this did not defeat the presumption of a resulting trust. The fact that is being proved by the presumption of a resulting trust is the intention to create a trust for the settlor. This view of presumed resulting trusts has been endorsed by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC); "...the presumption of resulting trust is rebutted by evidence of any intention inconsistent with such a trust, not only by evidence of an intention to make a gift." Some have argued that this presumption arises as a result of a lack of intention to transfer any beneficial interest. This view has generally not received judicial endorsement.

A marriage license is a document issued, either by a religious organization or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between jurisdictions, and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given). Today, they are a legal requirement in some jurisdictions and may also serve as the record of the marriage itself, if signed by the couple and witnessed. In other jurisdictions, a license is not required. In some jurisdictions, a "pardon" can be obtained for marrying without a license, and in some jurisdictions, common-law marriages and marriage by cohabitation and representation are also recognized. These do not require a marriage license. There are also some jurisdictions where marriage licenses do not exist at all and a marriage certificate is given to the couple after the marriage ceremony has taken place. History. For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple's declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows, even without witnesses, the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married. Some states in the US hold that public cohabitation can be sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America. Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts, with their use gradually expanding to other jurisdictions. United States. In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized by law, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license; this becomes an issue in the settlement of decedents' estates. North Carolina and Tennessee (which was originally western North Carolina) never recognized marriage at the common law as valid without a license unless entered into in other states. They have always recognized otherwise valid marriages (except bigamous, polygamous, interracial, or same-sex) entered into in conformity with the law of other states, territories and nations. The specifications for obtaining a marriage license vary between states. In general, however, both parties must appear in person at the time the license is obtained; be of marriageable age (for example, over 18 years; lower in some states with the consent of a parent); present proper identification (typically a driver's license, state ID card, birth certificate or passport; more documentation may be required for those born outside of the United States); and neither must be married to anyone else (proof of spouse's death or divorce may be required for someone who had been previously married in some states). The US states of Louisiana, Florida, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Mississippi, California, New York, and the District of Columbia once required blood tests before issuing a marriage license, but such requirements have since been abolished. The tests were mainly used to check for previous or current bouts of syphilis and rubella (German measles); other diseases that have been screened for before marriage in some cases have included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV, the last of which is the only one of those three that is detectable using a blood test.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations. Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defenses against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. Unlike the related United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories, although common law courts in some jurisdictions are less stringent than others in this regard. In practice, however, such courts might rule that actions with a commercial character, which might be naïvely assumed to fall into one of these categories, were in fact infringements of copyright, as fair dealing is not as flexible a concept as the American concept of fair use. There are similar limitations and exceptions to copyright, such as the right to quote, also in the Berne Convention and in the laws of civil law jurisdictions. By country. United States. The parallel concept in United States copyright law is fair use. The term "fair dealing" has a different meaning in the U.S. It is a duty of full disclosure imposed upon corporate officers, fiduciaries, and parties to contracts. In the reported cases, it usually arises in the context of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing", which underlies the tort cause of action for insurance bad faith. Canada. The Canadian concept of fair dealing is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting. With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair. Prior to 2011, fair dealing in Canada was not definitely found to contain exceptions for parody (unlike fair use in the United States), but the Copyright Act has since been amended to include parody and satire (along with educational use) under its fair dealing provisions. Previously, a Quebec Court of Appeal in Les productions Avanti Cine Video v Favreau (4 August 1999) had recognized that parody could potentially be a 'critique', but it refused to recognize the exception in that circumstance. The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Limited v Law Society of Upper Canada has gone far in clarifying the concept of fair dealing in Canada. In considering fair dealing the Court makes the following general observation: It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defense. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. Furthermore, by taking "a liberal approach to the enumerated purposes of the dealing", the Court has made fair dealing more flexible, reducing the gap between this provision and US fair use.