§ 513.20
Citing Cases (15)
Minnesota Supreme Court
In Re Tveten · 1987 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
First National Bank of Saint Paul v. Shallern Corp. · 1981 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Snyder Electric Co. v. Fleming · 1981 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Minnesota Court of Appeals
Texas Commerce Bank v. Olson · 1987 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Howe v. Howe · 1986 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
Kessel v. Kessel · 1985 1 citation
+ 1 more citation in this opinion.
U.S. District Court, D. Minnesota
United States v. Bigalk · 2009 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Xemas, Inc. v. United States · 1988 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
Dardanell Co. Trust v. United States · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
BBCA, INC. v. United States · 1986 2 citations
+ 2 more citations in this opinion.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Bankr. D. Minnesota
Girard v. Michener (In Re Michener) · 1998 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Leonard v. Norman Vinitsky Residuary Trust (In Re Jolly's, Inc.) · 1995 2 citations
.In arguing that he has the benefit of a presumption, the Plaintiff is technically wrong. His cited authority, Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cooper, was decided under a law since repealed — the Minnesota enactment of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, former Minn. Stat. §§ 513.20-.32. The UFCA did not contain any provisions to structure the process of fact-finding on the issue of intent, whether by creating a presumption or otherwise. The device recognized in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cooper, then, was judicially-engrafted, and with the change in the law may no longer be applicable. However, MinnStat § 513.44(b) does contain an aid for fact-finding. It allows j the court to consider certain specified badges of fraud in passing on the question of the transfer- *841 or's actual intent. These circumstances include whether:
.In arguing that he has the benefit of a presumption, the Plaintiff is technically wrong. His cited authority, Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cooper, was decided under a law since repealed — the Minnesota enactment of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act, former Minn. Stat. §§ 513.20-.32. The UFCA did not contain any provisions to structure the process of fact-finding on the issue of intent, whether by creating a presumption or otherwise. The device recognized in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cooper, then, was judicially-engrafted, and with the change in the law may no longer be applicable. However, MinnStat § 513.44(b) does contain an aid for fact-finding. It allows j the court to consider certain specified badges of fraud in passing on the question of the transfer- *841 or's actual intent. These circumstances include whether:
Palatine National Bank of Palatine v. Strom (In Re Strom) · 1989 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.
Bergquist v. Theisen (In Re Theisen) · 1984 6 citations
+ 6 more citations in this opinion.
In Re Olson · 1984 4 citations
+ 4 more citations in this opinion.