Essen v. Gilmore

In Essen v. Gilmore (2000) 259 Neb. 55 607 N.W.2d 829, the debtor renounced his inheritance from his mother while an unexecuted judgment was pending against him. The debtor received no consideration for the renunciation. (Id. at pp. 55-56.) Nonetheless, the renunciation did not constitute a fraudulent conveyance because the debtor did not "transfer" an "asset" within the meaning of Nebraska's UFTA. Because a timely filed renunciation related back to the time of death based upon the principle that a bequest was merely an offer which could be accepted or rejected, the beneficiary received no property, and therefore, the renunciation did not constitute a transfer because there was no asset to transfer. (Id. at p. 60; see also Cal. Prob. Code, 283 disclaimer of interest in estate not a fraudulent transfer.)