I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case.
I believe that the trial court’s decision was based on the trial judge’s determination of the witnesses’ credibility and should be affirmed on the ground of inadequate consideration. The trial judge made a factual finding that the equipment at issue had a value of $79,550, and there has been no appeal of that finding. Even according to Mr. Volner’s testimony, he paid no more than $20,000 for all of this equipment, approximately 25% of its value. This inadequacy of consideration does not stand alone; it is accompanied by “inequitable incidents” or “badges of fraud.” A “badge of fraud” can be “any fact that throws suspicion on the transaction and calls for an explanation.” Reagan v. Connelly, No. E2000-00451-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1661524, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2000) (quoting Macon Bank & Trust Co. v. Holland, 715 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). These include inadequate consideration for the transfer, a family or friendship relationship between the transferor and the transferee, and a lack of explanation for the suspicious transaction. Stevenson v. Hicks (In re: Hicks), 176 Bankr. 466, 470 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995). Similarly, “inequitable incidents” indicating fraud include undue advantage, ignorance, sickness, old age, incapacities, and the like. Estate of Fischer, ex rel Meyers v. Rogers, 2002 WL 31895721, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. Appl. Dec. 31, 2002). Where one or more badges of fraud are present, a presumption of fraud arises “and consequently shift the burden of disproving fraud to the defendant.” Id. (quoting Stevenson v. Hicks (In re: Hicks), 176 Bankr. 466, 470 9Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1995)). In this case, there are numerous such badges of fraud and inequitable incidents.