In A-S Kreditt-Finans v. Cia Venetico De Navegacion (E.D.Pa. 1983) 560 F. Supp. 705, 711, affd. (3d Cir. 1984) 729 F.2d 1446, the court held the creditor could not maintain an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, where the mortgage debt owed to secured lenders exceeded the fair market value of the property and thus the complaining creditor could not have recovered anything on its debt even if the transaction were set aside and the property were sold to enforce the debt. (Id. at pp. 708, 710, 711-712 & fn. 15 citing, among others, the California Haskins case, supra, 96 Cal. App. 2d 688.) In Holthaus v. Parsons (1991) 238 Neb. 223 469 N.W.2d 536, the court cited the California Haskins case and applied it on facts analogous to the present case. A creditor sought to set aside the debtor's transfer of his home. The home was worth $ 58,000. It was subject to a $ 24,000 mortgage and to two prior judgment liens of $ 10,000 and $ 47,000. The court concluded, "it is obvious that appellee was not injured by the conveyance and therefore was not entitled to relief under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act." (Id. at p. 538.)