Jones v. Mackey Price Thompson & Ostler, 2020 UT 25 (May 14, 2020)

After nearly ten years of litigation between a law firm and a former partner over distribution of litigation proceeds, the district court entered a directed a verdict against the partner on several claims, including a claim for fraudulent transfer.  On appeal from this order, the supreme court held that a “mixed motive” is sufficient to establish an “actual intent” to hinder, delay, or defraud under the Fraudulent Transfer Act.  Accordingly, the fact that the law firm may have shifted assets to avoid a tax liability did not preclude the possibility that it also acted with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the partner in his collection efforts.