the transfer might be avoidable.” CNB Int’l, Inc., 393 B.R. at 330 (quoting Mosier v. Goodwin (In re Goodwin), 115 B.R. 674, 677 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1990)). “[A] transferee does not act in good faith when he has sufficient knowledge to place him on inquiry notice of the debtor’s possible insolvency.” ... And, “[i]f a transferee possesses knowledge of facts that suggest a transfer may be fraudulent,” he has sufficient knowledge to preclude his incantation of § 550(b)’s defense. In this case, Chorbajian was intimately familiar with BMC’s performance and knew of BMC’s financial difficulties at the time of the transfers. Accordingly, he was not without knowledge of the potential voidability of the transfers. See Grochocinski v. Knippen (In re Knippen), 355 B.R. 710, 730 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2006) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Chorbajian cannot disclaim
holding that debtors cannot claim an exemption in a homestead after trustee avoided the transfer of the property as a fraudulent conveyance because the transfer by the debtors was voluntary holding that where the debtor did not act but merely had knowledge of and benefit from the fraudulent transfer he was not considered to have performed it holding that transferees failed to satisfy element of defense where they were aware of debtors financial problems at the time of transfer had lent money to debtor prior to transfer and not all money had been repaid holding that account summary could not be used to prove the knowledge of debtor and transferees where record contained no evidence that debtor or transferees saw the summary holding that because debtor retained control of property a transfer had not yet occurred