How have the courts determined that there was no actual intent to defraud a corporation in making three conveyances?

The trial court could have well concluded on the basis of the foregoing evidence that the purpose of the corporation in making the conveyances was not to defraud creditors but to pay an obligation (Page Street), negotiate the retirement of a shareholder (Balch lots) and build two homes for two officers (Balch lot and Voiss lot) without cost to the corporation. It was within the exclusive province of the trial court to weigh and evaluate all of the factors bearing upon the issue of actual intent including the factor that all three conveyances were made to officers and directors and the fact that two of the deeds were not promptly placed of record. It is not our proper function to reweigh the evidence relevant to the three conveyances must less to declare that such evidence establishes an actual intent to defraud as a matter of law. (Heffernan v. Bennett & Armour, supra, 110 Cal.App.2d 564, 243 P.2d 846.) The trial court's determination that there was no actual intent to defraud must therefore be upheld.