Lender has a right to enforce its judgment against only the home in Suffolk. Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the farm in Chesapeake or the vacation home in Roanoke.

3a
Lender has a right to enforce its judgment against the home in Suffolk.

The facts indicate that David and Suzy married in 2015. While they both resided in the Suffolk home, the Suffolk home was given to David as a gift from his grandfather in 2014, prior to his marriage with Suzy. Therefore, the home in Suffolk would be considered seperate property in Virginia and not marital property. Thus, the home in Suffolk is David's seperate property and therefore is subject to his creditors.

David obtained personal loans from Lender Servicing Co. (Lender) that were based on personal guarantees that David provided to fund his business venture prior to his marriage with Suzy. Therefore, David is personally liable to Lender for the amount owing on his loan which he stopped making payments on.

The facts further indicate that David, in an effort to protect his Suffolk home from creditors, transferred the home to Suzy's name and recorded a deed in the Suffolk Circuit Court in September 2021.

Following this transfer, Lender filed a Motion for Judgment against David in the Suffolk Circuit Court based on nonpayment and David was served with the Motion for Judgment on November 1, 2021.

Virginia is a race-notice jurisdiction. Thus, the party that both takes possession and records first prevails over subsequent takers. Thus, on its face, it would appear that David's wife Suzy is the sole owner of the home in Suffolk, and therefore Lender would not be able to enforece its judgment against it, because the home is no longer owned by David, becasue title was transferred to Suzy and it was recorded prior to Lender's filing of the Motion for Judgment

However, the facts here indicate what is known as a "badge of fraud" in Virginia, were a debtor fraudulently transfers his or her assets to a spouse to shield the asset from creditors. Indications of this presumptivly fraudulent behavior are transfers of property to spouses without realistic consideration. Here, the fact that David transferred the home in Suffolk to Suzy "in an effort to protect his home in Suffolk from creditors" is the intent to defraud Lender, and further, the deed even recited that the property was given to Suzy "in consideration of David's natural love and affection for Suzy." Thus, this transaction would be considered a badge of fraud and thus void. Therefore, Lender has a right to enforce its judgment against the home in Suffolk.

3b
Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the farm in Chesapeake.

In Virginia, Bona Fide purchasers for value take free and clear from creditor's personal judgments on property, provided they obtain title to the property for value, in good faith, and without notice of the creditor's judgment or interest.

Here, the farm in the City of Chesapeake was David's seperate property becasue he inherited it from his father in December 2021. David then conveyed the farm in Chesapeake to John Smith in February 2022. Smith here is a Bona Fide purchasers for value because the farm was conveyed to him by David in full satisfaction of a $50,000 debt that was owed to him by David. Further, it appears that he took the property in good faith, as there is nothing in the facts that suggest otherwise. Further, Smith took without notice of Lender's judgment against David, because Lender's lawyers recorded the duly authenticated abstracts of its judgment against David in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake in March of 2022, a month after the conveyance to Smith took place. Therefore, Lender has no right to enforce its judgment against the farm in Chesapeake.

It should be noted that because Lender has filed and recorded the judgment against David in the Circuit Court of the City of Chesapeake, Lender should have a right in the proceeds from the sale of farm in Chesapeake. However, as indicated in the facts and noted above, the farm in Chesapeake was conveyed by David to Smith "in full satisfaction of a $50,000 debt he owed Smith." Therefore, there are no proceeds to which Lender would have a claim.

3c
Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the vacation home in Roanoke.

In Virginia, if title to real property is held by spouses as tenants by the entireties, the spouses have rights of survivorship in the property (similar to that of joint tenants with rights of survivorship) and the property itself is shielded from creditors of either spouse. The exception to this shilding from creditor liability is when both spouses share a common creditor or when the spouses agree to enter into an arangement with the property held as tenants by the entirety as collateral for the loan. The main requirement to hold property as tenants by the entireties in Virginia is marriage. In other words, the two co- owners must be married.

Here, the facts indicate that the vacation home in Roanoke was purchased by David and Suzy in 2019 after thier marriage and title to the vacation home was held by David and Suzy as tenants by the entireties.

In March 2022, when Lender's lawyer recorded duly authenticated abstracts of its judgment against David in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, this judgment would normally allow Lender to enforce its judgment against property owned by David in Roanoke.

However, because title to the vacation home in Roanoke was held by David and Suzy as tenants by the entireties, and because the debt owned to Lender is David's personal debt and not Suzy's, and nothing in the facts indicate that Suzy consented or agreed to any arangement where the poperty would be collateral to a loan, the vacation home in Roanoke is shielded from any creditor judgment against David. Therefore, Lender has no right to enforce its judgment against the vacation home in Roanoke.

(a) The Lender does have a right to enforce its judgment against the home in Suffolk because David behaved fradulently in conveying the house to Suzy.

Under Virginia law, there can be a presumption of fraud and fradulent conveyance when a debtor attempts to shield his property from liability by transferring the title of the property to another. Specifically, this presumption of fraud arises when the debtor conveys to a spouse or other family member, conveys the property with no consideration, conveys the property at signficantly less value than the value of the property, and when conveyance occurred after the debtor was insolvent or the conveyance would cause the debtor to become insolvent.

Here, David personally guaranteed his loans from Lender for funds that were provided for his business venture. Because his businesses failed, Lender cannot recoup the funds from the businesss and so must look to David personally. David had no liquidity but did have some personal realty. Specifically, David had a home in Suffolk, Virginia that had been given to him by his grandfather. David received this home by gift or trust before he was married to Suzy, and was therefore David's separate (nonmarital) asset. The facts specifically say that David transferred the home to Suzy's name alone in an effort to protect his home from creditors. He became insolvent in July 2021, and transferred the title in September 2021. Additionally, Suzy is a family member (wife), and the house was transferred for no monetary value even though he was already insolvent, and only for the consideration of love and affection. Regardless of the fact that the deed was recorded prior Lender's judgement, these facts all lead to a presumption of fradulent conveyance, and Lender should have a right to enforce its judgement against the home.

(b) The Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the farm in Chesapeake because it was properly conveyed to Smith.

Unlike the presumption of fradulent conveyance discussed above, David conveyed the farm to Smith in full satisfcation of a $50,000 debt that he owed Smith. David and Smith are not related, and there was signicant value in the transaction. This transaction does not rise to the level of presumption of fradulent conveyance.

Lender may argue that it has a right to the property because Lender obtained its judgement against David in January 10, 2022 and David did not convey the property until February 2, 2022. However, at the time that Lended obtained its judgement, it only docketed the judgment in the City of Suffolk. In order to have a validly enforceable judgement for real property, it must be docketed in the locality where the real property is located. The farm was located in Chesapeake. At the time that Smith took title of the farm, there was no record of judgement docketed in Chesapeake.

Additonally, Lender may not later enforce its judgement against a subsequent purchaser if the purchaser was a Bona Fide Purchaser - one who took, for value, with no actual or constructive knowledge that the sell would impede on the rights of another. As previously mentioned, Lender did not docket the judgement in Chesapeake. The facts do not indicate that Smith was aware of the judgment. Therefore, Smith likely did not have knowledge of Lender's rights. Additionally, the conveyance was for the value of the $50,000 that David owed Smith. Therefore, Smith was a bona fide purchaser and Lender cannot now come and take the property from Smith.

(c) The Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the vacation home in Roanake because the rights of the home lay with David and Suzy's marriage.

Under Virginia law, a creditor may not enforce a judgment against property that is held by tenancy in the entirety unless the creditor has a judgment against both spouses. The facts show that the vacation home is held by David and Suzy as tenants by the entiries. A tenancy by the entirity is a special type of joint tenancy in which the marriage is the holder of the title - and the property is not devisable nor alienable by either party of the marriage. Additonally, Lender only has a judgment against David, not Suzy. Because of existence of the Tenancy by the Entirey, Lender cannot attempt to enforce its judgment against "David's share," separate of "Suzy's share," because there is not really such a thing, as the home is the "Marriage's share." Therefore, Lender does not have a right to enforce its judgment against the vacation home.