Khteeb v. Helcim USA, Inc.
After obtaining a default judgment against a corporate debtor, the creditor brought proceedings supplementary under section 56.29(9) against two non-officer transferees for fraudulent transfers, and the trial court entered default final judgments holding them jointly and severally liable for the entire $211,098.49 outstanding judgment without an evidentiary hearing. The Fourth District reversed, holding that damages in a FUFTA proceedings-supplementary claim are unliquidated and that section 726.109(2) caps recovery at the lesser of the value of the asset each transferee received or the amount needed to satisfy the creditor's claim.
Key facts
- Creditor Khteeb obtained a default judgment against a corporate debtor and then brought proceedings supplementary against two non-officer transferees under section 56.29(9), alleging fraudulent transfers.
- The trial court entered default final judgments holding both transferees jointly and severally liable for the entire $211,098.49 outstanding judgment without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful decision for anyone defending impleaded transferees in Florida proceedings supplementary: it confirms that section 56.29(9) does not authorize blanket joint and several liability for the full underlying… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.