Updates
September 2017
Missouri Appellate Court Clarifies MUFTA After Complicated Lawsuit

A recent court case – May v. Williams, WD 79651, 2017 WL 3253046 (Mo. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2017) – heard by Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals provided insight on the proper procedures and application for piercing claims, particularly in alleged fraudulent transfers.

The Key Takeaways:


Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA) claims allow for a powerful range of available relief (including avoidance, attachment, or injunctive relief), but parties need to either tailor their claims to fit this framework, or seek alternative relief (including piercing claims).

  • A plaintiff should make specific allegations related to any piercing claims, including pleading it as a separate equitable cause of action, and seeking specific findings on the from the trial court regarding the piercing issues and claims.
  • In a MUFTA case, a plaintiff must clearly and correctly identify the alleged “debtor”, and can only pursue claims against other individuals or entities if it takes steps to pierce the corporate veil.
  • The May decision emphasizes the importance of fully analyzing claims, parties, and available remedies early in the litigation process.

To read the full eAlert, click here.