Divorce Settlements as Avoidable Transfers: Structuring Against a Trustee’s Clawback

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
The Law Office of David P. Lloyd, Ltd

David Lloyd has practiced in the debtor-creditor field throughout his more than 40-year legal career, with extensive experience in bankruptcy and bankruptcy litigation.

Firas M. Abunada
Firas M. Abunada
Firas Law, LLC

Firas M. Abunada is an Illinois attorney and solo practitioner with experience in foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceedings, and other civil matters. His practice serves clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, and Will Counties.

Live Video-Broadcast: October 19, 2026

2 hour CLE

Tuition: $195.00
Subscribe to Federal Bar Association CLE Pass...
Co-Sponsored by myLawCLE
Get this course, plus over 1,000+ of live webinars.
Learn More
Training 5 or more people?

Sign-up for a law firm subscription plan and each attorney in the firm receives free access to all CLE Programs

Program Summary

 

The Divorce Is Final. The Property Transfer May Not Be

A signed divorce settlement feels final. A later bankruptcy can reopen it. Trustees attack inter-spousal property transfers under §§ 548, 544(b), and 547 of the Bankruptcy Code, and through state fraudulent transfer statutes incorporated by reference. United States v. Miller (2025) and In re O’Gorman (9th Cir. 2024) changed the trustee’s avoidance toolkit. Practitioners need to know what those decisions mean today.

Rely on a “fair overall deal,” and the value argument often fails. Leave value undocumented, and the badges of fraud go unanswered. Let the good-faith record lapse, and the § 548(c) defense can be lost before the transfer is final. Ignore insider status and state UVTA look-back windows, and the exposure runs for years. Assume a transfer is support without testing it, and the § 547(c)(7) shield may not hold.

You walk out with an asset-by-asset documentation checklist and a working framework for solvency analysis, independent appraisal standards, and good-faith record-building. You will be able to identify when a completed settlement remains vulnerable to clawback and explain that exposure to clients. This is structuring judgment exercised at the moment of settlement, not doctrine you can look up after the trustee calls.

Key topics to be discussed:

  • Trustee Avoidance Powers
    Map how §§ 548, 544(b), and 547 and state fraudulent transfer statutes let a trustee unwind a
    settlement, and what United States v. Miller (2025) and In re O’Gorman (9th Cir. 2024) changed.
  • Badges of Fraud
    Recognize the badges of fraud every divorce transfer automatically triggers, and negate the
    remaining ones through specific valuation and disclosure practices.
  • Reasonably Equivalent Value
    Test debt assumption, support waivers, and retirement account offsets the way courts measure
    value from the creditors’ perspective, not as a “fair overall deal.”
  • Domestic Support Shield
    Determine which divorce-related transfers qualify as domestic support obligations immune from
    avoidance under § 547(c)(7), and what disqualifies a transfer from that protection.
  • Good-Faith Transferee Defense
    Structure the § 548(c) good-faith transferee defense from the moment of settlement, and avoid
    the missteps that destroy it before the transfer is finalized.
  • Contemporaneous Value Record
    Build an asset-by-asset record of valuation, solvency, and appraisal evidence for real property,
    business interests, retirement accounts, and assumed debts that survives multi-year UVTA lookback
    windows.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Date / Time: October 19, 2026

  • 2:30 pm – 4:40 pm Eastern
  • 1:30 pm – 3:40 pm Central
  • 12:30 pm – 2:40 pm Mountain
  • 11:30 am – 1:40 pm Pacific

Closed-captioning available

Speakers

David Lloyd, Owner | The Law Office of David P. Lloyd, Ltd

David Lloyd has practiced in the debtor-creditor field throughout his more than 40-year legal career, with extensive experience in bankruptcy and bankruptcy litigation. During the banking crisis of the 1990s, he served as a senior bankruptcy attorney with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. From 1999 to 2012, he was a partner at Grochocinski, Grochocinski & Lloyd, where he represented bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditors in bankruptcy matters. Since 2012, he has maintained a solo practice focused on consumer and commercial bankruptcy cases and bankruptcy litigation. His extensive experience representing both bankruptcy trustees and parties involved in bankruptcy proceedings provides a strong foundation for addressing the risks that can arise when divorce settlements and property transfers are later examined in bankruptcy, including the potential for trustee avoidance and clawback claims.

  • Education & Credentials

David P. Lloyd earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from DePaul University in 1979 and his Juris Doctor degree from DePaul University College of Law in 1982. He was admitted to the Illinois Bar in 1982 and is licensed to practice law in Illinois.

  • Recognition & Leadership

David P. Lloyd is a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute, the Illinois State Bar Association, and the West Suburban Bar Association. His firm also maintains relationships with the local legal community and has several published cases involving bankruptcy trustee matters.

  • Professional Involvement

David Lloyd’s professional career has focused on the debtor-creditor field and bankruptcy law. His experience includes representing bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditors, as well as handling consumer and commercial bankruptcy matters and bankruptcy litigation.

  • Experience

David Lloyd has more than 40 years of experience practicing in the debtor-creditor field. During the 1990s, he served as a senior bankruptcy attorney at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during that decade’s banking crisis. From 1999 through 2012, he was a partner at Grochocinski, Grochocinski & Lloyd. Since 2012, he has maintained a solo practice focused on consumer and commercial bankruptcy cases and bankruptcy litigation.

 

Firas M. Abunada, Owner | Firas Law, LLC

Firas M. Abunada is an Illinois attorney and solo practitioner with experience in foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, bankruptcy adversary proceedings, and other civil matters. His practice serves clients in Cook, DuPage, Kane, and Will Counties. Firas is committed to providing clients with the knowledge and information needed to make informed decisions regarding their legal matters and takes an individualized approach to each case. His practice emphasizes thorough attention to detail, advocacy on behalf of clients, and strategic
litigation planning. He is the owner of Firas Law, LLC and maintains a carefully managed caseload to provide individual attention to each matter.

  • Education & Credentials

Firas M. Abunada earned a Bachelor of Science in Finance from DePaul University in 2005 and a Juris Doctor degree from The John Marshall Law School in 2012. He has been admitted to practice law in Illinois since 2012 and is also admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

  • Recognition & Leadership

Firas M. Abunada was recognized as a 2020 Emerging Lawyer by Leading Lawyers. He was also selected to the Illinois Rising Stars list in 2022 for his work in bankruptcy, according to Super Lawyers. His LinkedIn profile likewise identifies his recognition as an Illinois Rising Star for Bankruptcy.

  • Professional Involvement

Firas M. Abunada has been involved in legal education and professional publications concerning bankruptcy and related matters. His published presentations and materials include topics addressing bankruptcy and domestic support obligations and property settlements, bankruptcy and creditor issues involving elder law, and the basics of bankruptcy. Public professional profiles also identify his memberships in the Chicago Bar Association, Will County Bar Association, and Illinois State Bar Association.

  • Experience

Firas M. Abunada has practiced law since 2012. His professional experience includes serving as an associate attorney at a Joliet law firm from 2012 to 2019 and subsequently practicing with Grotta & Associates, P.C. before establishing and operating Firas Law, LLC. His current practice includes foreclosure defense, bankruptcy, adversary proceedings, and other civil matters, with experience representing clients in matters before courts in Illinois, including bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Agenda

SESSION 1 – How Trustees Avoid Property Transfers Made in a Divorce | 2:30pm – 3:30pm

This session examines the statutory and case-law framework trustees use to attack divorce property transfers in a subsequent bankruptcy, covering §§ 548, 544(b), and 547 of the Bankruptcy Code as well as state fraudulent transfer statutes incorporated by reference. Attorneys will learn how courts apply the reasonably equivalent value standard, the badges of fraud doctrine, and the domestic support obligation shield to inter-spousal transfers. Participants will leave able to identify the conditions under which a completed divorce settlement remains vulnerable to clawback and explain the legal basis for that exposure to clients on both sides of the marriage.

BREAK | 3:30pm – 3:40pm

SESSION 2 – Building the Value Record That Defeats an Avoidance Claim | 3:40pm – 4:40pm

This session teaches divorce practitioners how to construct a contemporaneous documentation record that defeats a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance claim against property transfers made in a divorce settlement. Attendees will learn how courts measure reasonably equivalent value from the creditors’ perspective, how to negate badges of fraud through specific valuation and disclosure practices, and how to structure the § 548(c) good-faith transferee defense from the moment of settlement. Attorneys leave with an asset-by-asset documentation checklist and a working framework for solvency analysis, independent appraisal standards, and good-faith record-building that survives multi-year look-back windows.

Credits

Alaska

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Our programs are CLE-eligible through Alaska’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity.
Alabama

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Arkansas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Arizona

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Professional Responsibility/Ethics

California

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Colorado

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Connecticut

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

District of Columbia

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Delaware

Pending CLE Approval
2 Enhanced Ethics

Florida

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Ethics Hours

Receive CLE credit in Florida via attorney submission.
Georgia

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Hawaii

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics or Professional Responsibility Education

Iowa

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Idaho

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Illinois

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics, Civility, Professionalism

Indiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Kansas

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Kentucky

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Louisiana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Massachusetts

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maryland

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Maine

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Michigan

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Minnesota

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Missouri

Approved for CLE Credits
2.4 Ethics

Mississippi

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Montana

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Fitness and Integrity

North Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

North Dakota

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Our programs are CLE-eligible through North Dakota’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity. Section 1, Policy 1.14
Nebraska

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Responsibility

myLawCLE reports attendance to Nebraska on each attorney’s behalf for all programs. Please do not self-report.
New Hampshire

Approved for CLE Credits
120 Ethics / Professionalism minutes

As of July 1, 2014, the NHMCLE Board no longer provides pre- or post-approval of courses. Attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance online at www.nhbar.org, based on qualification provisions of Rule 53.
New Jersey

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New Jersey’s recognition of multi-jurisdictional reciprocity, except for the courses required under BCLE Reg. 201:2
New Mexico

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Nevada

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

New York

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Our programs are CLE-eligible through New York’s Approved Jurisdiction Group “B”.
Ohio

Pending CLE Approval
2 Professional Conduct

Oklahoma

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 Ethics / Professionalism

Oregon

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

Pennsylvania

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Rhode Island

Pending CLE Approval
2.5 Ethics / Professionalism

South Carolina

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

South Dakota

No MCLE Required
2 CLE Hour(s)

Tennessee

Pending CLE Approval
2 Dual

Texas

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Utah

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

Virginia

Not Eligible
2 Ethics / Professionalism Hours

Vermont

Approved for CLE Credits
2 Ethics

Washington

Approved via Attorney Submission
2 Ethics Hours

Receive CLE credit in Washington via attorney submission.
Wisconsin

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics

West Virginia

Pending CLE Approval
2.4 Ethics / Professionalism

Wyoming

Pending CLE Approval
2 Ethics / Professionalism

More CLE Webinars
Upcoming CLE Webinars
Getting Rid of Tax Penalties (Presented by Tax Rep)
Getting Rid of Tax Penalties (Presented by Tax Rep) Mon, October 12, 2026
Live Webcast
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust
The Necessary Evils of Funding a Trust Wed, October 14, 2026
Live Webcast