GILDEA, Chief Justice. *15In this case we are asked to decide whether appellant Amanda Restorff committed maltreatment by neglect under the Maltreatment of Minors Act ("the Act"). Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g) (2018). The Commissioner of Human Services ("Commissioner") determined that Restorff committed maltreatment under the Act when a 3-year-old child wandered away from her daycare. On appeal, Restorff argues that the supervision she provided was appropriate and that the Commissioner misinterpreted the Act in finding her responsible for maltreatment. Because we conclude that the Commissioner misinterpreted the Act and failed to make necessary findings, we reverse and remand for additional fact finding and a revised agency decision consistent with this opinion. FACTS Amanda Restorff operates a daycare out of her home in Otsego. Before this appeal, Restorff had been licensed to run a daycare for 7 years; her license permitted her to care for up to 14 children at a time. On August 1, 2016, Restorff was caring for 12 children-4 of whom were under 5 years old. Restorff's license did not require that she have assistance in caring for this number of children, but on August 1 she did have help from her 13-year-old niece, Emma. Emma had taken online training before beginning work at the daycare and Restorff gave Emma instructions on supervising children.1 Three-year-old G.B. and his sister arrived at the daycare by 8:30 the morning of the incident. Restorff was preparing cereal, and the children were playing inside. Soon after G.B. and his sister arrived, Restorff helped the children put their shoes on in the garage and sent them to the backyard with Emma. The backyard is large-about an acre-and unfenced. But Restorff's license did not require that she have a fence or that she keep the children inside. Restorff testified that she would typically keep children younger than five on her deck, which has a gate, when they were outside. But, she explained, she did not do that on August 1 because she had help from Emma and because she was going to be in the house for such a brief period of time. Emma was pushing children on a swing set outside while Restorff finished getting breakfast ready back in the house. While Restorff was inside, the window by the kitchen sink and a nearby sliding-glass door were open. Both overlooked the backyard, and Restorff believed she could still see and hear all of the children while inside. Around 8:45 a.m., Restorff finished preparing cereal for the children and brought it out to the deck. At this point, the children had been in the backyard for some amount of time between 1 to 20 minutes.2 *16The cereal was distributed to the children, and Restorff realized that G.B. was missing when she discovered that there was an extra bowl. She began to search the yard, the garage, and the house, yelling out G.B.'s name. Around 8:47 a.m., the sheriff's office received a call that G.B. had been found near the side of a road approximately 2½ blocks from Restorff's house. A deputy arrived on the scene at 8:51 a.m. G.B. told the deputy his name and said that he was looking for his mother. The woman who found G.B. told the responding deputy that she lived near the corner of County Road 39 and Page Avenue Northeast in Otsego. She heard semi-trucks honking as they passed by her house that morning, and, when she looked outside, she found G.B. standing near an address sign across the street. The woman went outside, picked G.B. up, and called the sheriff's office. Back at Restorff's daycare, the search continued. Restorff called her father, who lived nearby, to search the neighborhood while she stayed at home and searched the house. Unable to find G.B., Restorff called 911 at 9:06 a.m. The 911 dispatcher told Restorff that someone had found G.B. and that he was with a deputy. The deputy brought G.B. back to Restorff's daycare a few minutes later. With G.B. returned, Restorff called G.B.'s parents to inform them about the incident. They told her-for the first time-that G.B. had wandered off before and that they did not fault her for the incident. G.B.'s mother said the same to the deputy sheriff. At approximately 9:45 a.m., Restorff reported the incident to her licensing worker. By the end of the day, the Minnesota Department of Human Services ("DHS") issued an order temporarily suspending Restorff's childcare license. Restorff initially appealed the temporary suspension but later withdrew that appeal. With the temporary suspension in place, Wright County's health and human services and child protection departments began a joint investigation. They interviewed Restorff, Emma, and G.B.'s father. After completing its investigation, Wright County determined that Restorff was responsible for maltreatment. In a letter to Restorff, Wright County explained that "a preponderance of the evidence ... shows that a child was found .3 miles from the daycare facility unattended." Restorff requested reconsideration, and Wright County affirmed its maltreatment determination. In addition to the maltreatment determination, Restorff's license remained suspended for several months as she worked with Wright County to install additional safeguards in her home. In November, Restorff prepared a "wandering prevention plan" in which she promised to voluntarily install a fence in her yard, amend her supervision policies, and enroll in a training course on supervision. By December 9, 2016, Restorff had put up a temporary fence around a portion of her yard, agreed to put a permanent fence in the yard once the ground thawed, completed a 2-hour course on supervision, and amended her supervision policies. Satisfied with these additional safeguards, DHS issued an order lifting the temporary suspension but placed conditions on Restorff's license for two years and imposed a $1,000 fine. Restorff appealed Wright County's maltreatment determination and DHS's order *17imposing conditions on her license and a fine. Under Minn. Stat. § 245A.08, subd. 2a(a) (2018) and Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 10i(f) (2018), an administrative law judge ("ALJ") held a contested-case hearing on March 15, 2017. At the hearing, Restorff testified that, before the incident in question, she had never received a license suspension or been found responsible for maltreatment. She also explained that she had never had a child wander away from her daycare before this incident. In addition to Restorff's testimony, 11 parents who planned to or had previously sent their children to Restorff's daycare-including G.B.'s mother-testified or wrote letters endorsing the quality of Restorff's daycare. Two people who had known Restorff for an extended period of time also submitted letters in the administrative proceeding endorsing Restorff's honesty and integrity. The ALJ issued a recommendation to the Commissioner of Human Services that the sanctions be affirmed. Specifically, the ALJ recommended that Restorff's maltreatment determination be affirmed because she failed to "provide for necessary supervision or child care arrangements appropriate for a child" as required by Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3). To reach this conclusion, the ALJ imported the definition of "supervision" from the daycare licensing rules. Those rules define "supervision" as "being within sight or hearing" of a child G.B.'s age "at all times so that the caregiver is capable of intervening to protect the health and safety of the child." Minn. R. 9502.0315, subp. 29a (2017). The ALJ concluded that Restorff was not within sight or hearing of G.B. "from the time he left [Restorff's] yard until the time he was returned to her care by a deputy sheriff," and, therefore, Restorff "failed to supervise" G.B as required by the Act. The Commissioner issued a final agency decision adopting the ALJ's recommendation but using a different analysis. The Commissioner characterized the maltreatment issue as "whether the supervision level was appropriate" for G.B. under the factors listed in Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3). She determined that Restorff's supervision level was inappropriate for G.B. "because G.B. was able to wander away without [her] knowledge." In addition, the Commissioner adopted the definition of "supervision" from the licensing rules and concluded that because G.B. was able to leave the daycare, he "was either not within [Restorff's] sight or hearing, or [Restorff] was not capable of intervening while G.B.'s elopement from [Restorff's] yard was in progress." Thus, while both the ALJ and the Commissioner used a strict-liability analysis, the ALJ determined that Restorff failed to supervise G.B. because she could not see or hear him after he left the backyard, and the Commissioner determined that Restorff must have failed to supervise G.B. because he was able to leave the backyard. Restorff petitioned the court of appeals for review by a writ of certiorari. The court of appeals affirmed. In re Maltreatment Determination of Restorff , No. A17-1433, 2018 WL 1997186 (Minn. App. Apr. 30, 2018). In doing so, the court of appeals, like the ALJ and the Commissioner, used the definition of "supervision" from Rule 9502.0315. The court of appeals adopted the ALJ's reasoning and concluded that, under the definition in the rule, Restorff needed to be within sight or hearing of G.B. "at all times," and that "G.B. was likely outside of Restorff's sight or hearing for at least 25 minutes" from the time he left the backyard until he was returned to the daycare. Id. at *3. *18We granted Restorff's petition for review of the maltreatment determination.3 On appeal, Restorff argues that the Commissioner misinterpreted and misapplied the Maltreatment of Minors Act in finding her responsible for maltreatment. Specifically, she argues that the language "to provide for necessary supervision" under Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3), requires caregivers to make and execute a plan for a child's supervision, not guarantee "a fail-safe supervisory system." Otherwise, according to Restorff, "every parent in this state, as well as every licensed daycare provider, who has ever had a child stray out of sight or hearing while under their supervision [will be liable] for maltreatment by neglect." The Commissioner contends that she properly interpreted and applied the Act, and she urges us to affirm the determination of maltreatment. ANALYSIS This case involves the safety of a young child who wandered away from his caregivers. Although the child was not injured, that fortuity does not change the seriousness of the situation. This case also comes to us against the backdrop of a marked increase in the number of reports of child maltreatment and increased scrutiny of the work caregivers and government officials alike perform.4 While these developments should provide incentives to caregivers and government officials to ensure all reasonable steps are taken to protect children, they do not alter the controlling legal standards or the responsibility of Minnesota's courts to ensure that those standards are met. To that end, the Administrative Procedure Act controls our review in this case. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, we may reverse or modify an agency decision if it is, among other things, affected by an error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (2018). In addition, we may remand the case for additional fact finding if the agency's findings are insufficient. In re A.D. , 883 N.W.2d 251, 258 (Minn. 2016). Agency decisions enjoy a presumption of correctness that warrants deference by courts. In re Appeal by Kind Heart Daycare, Inc. v. Comm'r of Human Servs. , 905 N.W.2d 1, 9 (Minn. 2017). But when confronted with questions of law, our review is de novo. Id. Whether an agency decision is supported by substantial evidence is a question of law, Webster v. Hennepin County , 910 N.W.2d 420, 428 (Minn. 2018), as are questions of statutory interpretation, In re A.D. , 883 N.W.2d at 256. I. Restorff argues that the Commissioner misinterpreted the Maltreatment of Minors Act in finding her responsible for maltreatment. The Act requires, among other things, that local welfare agencies investigate reports of maltreatment in child care programs and make determinations as to whether maltreatment occurred. Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subds. 3c(a), 10e(c) (2018). Maltreatment includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, mental injury and neglect. Id. , subd. 10e(f). The Act specifically *19defines each of these terms, but only "neglect" is at issue here. The definition of "neglect" includes nine clauses that set out qualifying acts and omissions. See id. , subd. 2(g)(1)-(9). Restorff was found to have violated clause 3. Id. , subd. 2(g)(3) ("Clause 3"). Clause 3 defines "neglect" as the failure by a person responsible for a child's care: to provide for necessary supervision or child care arrangements appropriate for a child after considering factors as the child's age, mental ability, physical condition, length of absence, or environment, when the child is unable to care for the child's own basic needs or safety, or the basic needs or safety of another child in their care. To determine whether the Commissioner's maltreatment determination was proper under Clause 3, we must interpret three distinct elements: (1) the effect of "provide for;" (2) what "necessary supervision" entails; and (3) what it means for supervision to be "appropriate for a child" under the listed factors. Our statutory interpretation starts with the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the terms. Emerson v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. 199 , 809 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Minn. 2012).5 In the absence of statutory definitions, we often look to dictionary definitions to determine the plain meaning of a statute's terms. In re A.D. , 883 N.W.2d at 256. In addition, we consider a statute "as a whole so as to harmonize and give effect to all its parts." Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc. , 254 Minn. 62, 93 N.W.2d 690, 698 (1958). A. We begin with an interpretation of "provide for." The parties agree that to "provide for" supervision means to create and execute a plan for a child's supervision. According to Restorff, to provide for something "reflects an element of advance preparation." She argues that the presence of "child care arrangements" in Clause 3 further supports this interpretation because an "arrangement" is also a plan or agreement to do something in the future. The Commissioner agrees with Restorff's interpretation and concedes that Restorff implemented a plan for G.B.'s supervision on August 1. But the Commissioner argues that "the supervision plan upon which [Restorff] relied was insufficient given the circumstances at her family child care program at the time of the incident." (Emphasis added). We agree with the parties that to "provide for" supervision means to make and execute a plan for supervision. The dictionary definition of "provide" is "[t]o make available," "[t]o supply something needed or desired," or "[t]o take[ ] measures in preparation." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1418 (5th ed. 2011). As an example of "provide" being used to signify taking measures in preparation, the dictionary gives the phrase "provide[ ] for the common defense." Id. Accordingly, under the plain and ordinary meaning of "provide for," Clause 3 requires a caregiver to create and execute a plan for a child's supervision. Such a definition contemplates that a parent or childcare provider might directly supervise a child or delegate that task to another individual. In either situation, the caregiver is providing for supervision. B. We next consider the term "necessary supervision." Clause 3 states that supervision *20is necessary "when the child is unable to care for the child's own basic needs or safety, or the basic needs or safety of another child in their care." Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3). But the Act does not contain a specific definition of "supervision." The ALJ, the Commissioner, and the court of appeals all imported the definition of "supervision" from the daycare licensing rules to determine what the term means under the Act. DHS promulgated the daycare licensing rules, and they define supervision as "a caregiver being within sight or hearing of an infant, toddler, or preschooler at all times so that the caregiver is capable of intervening to protect the health and safety of the child." Minn. R. 9502.0315, subp. 29a. Based on that definition, all three decision-makers below determined that Restorff failed to provide for necessary supervision of G.B. The ALJ and the court of appeals reached this conclusion by reasoning that G.B. was out of sight of both Restorff and Emma and could not be heard from the time he left the backyard until he was returned to the daycare. The Commissioner's final agency decision, on the other hand, found that Restorff failed to provide for supervision by applying a presumption: because G.B. wandered away without Restorff's knowledge, he "was either not within [Restorff's] sight or hearing, or [Restorff] was not capable of intervening while G.B.'s elopement from [Restorff's] yard was in progress." Using the daycare licensing rules to define supervision under the Act was improper. Under our principles of statutory interpretation, we look to an outside statute or rule like Rule 9502.0315 only when a statute is ambiguous, see State v. Thonesavanh , 904 N.W.2d 432, 437-38 (Minn. 2017) (explaining the in pari materia canon of construction), or when a word is a technical term with a special meaning, see Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2018). Neither condition exists here. In addition, we look to the statutory or regulatory definition of a word only when that definition is applicable. See Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. , 875 N.W.2d 279, 286 (Minn. 2016) ("When there is no applicable statutory definition, we often consult dictionary definitions to discern a word's plain meaning." (emphasis added)); see also Jaeger v. Palladium Holdings, LLC , 884 N.W.2d 601, 605 (Minn. 2016) ("When a statute or a rule does not contain a definition of a word or phrase, we look to [dictionary definitions] ...." (emphasis added)). The daycare licensing rules are not in chapter 626 or incorporated by Clause 3. And, more importantly, the daycare licensing rule at issue explicitly states that it applies only to other daycare licensing rules. Minn. R. 9502.0315, subp. 1 (2017) ("As used in parts 9502.0315 to 9502.0445, the following terms have the meanings given them.").6 Thus, the Commissioner erred in importing the daycare licensing rules to ascertain the plain meaning of "supervision" in Clause 3.7 *21Because there is no applicable statutory definition of "supervision," we look to dictionary definitions. Wayzata Nissan, LLC , 875 N.W.2d at 286. "Supervision" is defined as "[t]he act, process, or function of supervising." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1750 (5th ed. 2011). "Supervise," in turn, means "[t]o manage and direct; be in charge of." Id. A close synonym of supervision is "care," id. , which means, in relevant part, "watchful oversight," id. at 281. Using these definitions, "supervision" under Clause 3 requires that caregivers provide for watchful oversight of children in their care. C. The final issue of statutory interpretation is what it means for supervision to be "appropriate." Clause 3 requires that caregivers provide for supervision that is "appropriate for a child after considering factors [such] as the child's age, mental ability, physical condition, length of absence, or environment." This language requires the Commissioner to conduct a fact-specific examination of all of the circumstances present to determine whether the supervision plan was appropriate in the abstract and whether the plan was executed appropriately in the specific context at issue. In sum, Clause 3 requires that a caregiver create and execute a plan for a child's supervision. That supervision must include the provision of all watchful care that is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, including consideration of the specific factors listed in Clause 3. The Act does not impose a mechanical definition of what this supervision must look like but instead requires that the plan be appropriate under the listed factors. With this interpretation in mind, we must decide whether substantial evidence in the record supports the Commissioner's determination that Restorff committed maltreatment by neglect under Clause 3. II. The substantial evidence standard requires "more than a scintilla of evidence, more than 'some' evidence, and more than 'any' evidence." Webster v. Hennepin County , 910 N.W.2d 420, 428 (Minn. 2018). It is such evidence "that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." In re A.D. , 883 N.W.2d 251, 259 (Minn. 2016). Here, the record shows that Restorff created and executed a plan for supervision on the morning of August 1. Under this plan, Emma, Restorff's helper, supervised 12 children in an unfenced backyard while Restorff was within earshot inside the house. Restorff and Emma followed this plan for some time between 1 and 20 minutes before Restorff joined Emma and the children outside. In creating and executing the plan, Restorff did not know that G.B. had a propensity to wander and had never had a child wander away from her large backyard before. The decision-makers below did not conduct a fact-specific examination of these circumstances to determine whether Restorff's supervision plan was appropriate. *22Instead, they each adopted the definition of supervision from the daycare licensing rules and applied that rule to conclude that Restorff failed to provide supervision. But Clause 3 requires an assessment of whether the supervision was appropriate given the circumstances. The Commissioner's final decision came closest to an appropriateness analysis when she said, "[t]he issue is whether the supervision level was appropriate given G.B.'s age, his mental ability, and his being permitted in the unfenced back yard when [Restorff] was not present outdoors." But the Commissioner followed that issue statement with the conclusory determination that Restorff's "supervision of G.B. was not adequate because G.B. was able to wander away without [Restorff]'s knowledge and [Restorff] was incapable of intervening." Instead of analyzing the relevant factors listed in Clause 3, the Commissioner found that Restorff's supervision plan was automatically inappropriate because G.B. was able to wander. This strict-liability analysis is erroneous because it is not what the Act requires. As Restorff argues, such an interpretation would make every caregiver who has a child wander liable for maltreatment regardless of the particulars of their supervision plan or the incident.8 Although the Commissioner erred when she misinterpreted the statute, we may not reverse the final agency decision if substantial evidence in the record supports her ultimate determination. See Webster , 910 N.W.2d at 430 (noting that the Administrative Procedure Act instructs reviewing courts to consider "all evidence in the record, not just the evidence formally relied on by the [agency]"). With the benefit of hindsight, one can see how Restorff's supervision plan may have been inadequate. Watching 12 children is difficult, especially in a space without physical boundaries and when there is only one person fully committed to watching those children. *23But if Restorff was inside only for a brief period, her supervision plan could be appropriate under the factors. After all, Restorff's helper was with the children outside. Restorff was not aware of G.B.'s propensity to wander and had never had a child wander away from her backyard before.9 Moreover, a window and door were open so that Restorff could hear if something happened or if Emma called. In our view, the most important factor to the appropriateness analysis in this case is the amount of time Restorff was inside while the children were outside with Emma. This specific fact, however, is missing from the final agency decision. Neither the ALJ nor the Commissioner made a factual finding as to how long the children were outside without Restorff. In addition, the record offers a variety of possibilities as to how long the children were outside. These timelines range from 1 to 20 minutes, and it is unclear which of these is correct. Even the Commissioner is inconsistent in her brief to our court on the issue. In some places, the Commissioner says that the children went outside at "approximately 8:40 a.m.," which would mean that, based on the final agency decision, the children were outside for 5 minutes without Restorff. At other places in her brief, however, the Commissioner claims that Emma "was outside alone with the children for 10-15 minutes while [Restorff] prepared breakfast." In her final agency decision, the Commissioner says that it does not matter whether "the time frame that [Restorff] was actually indoors was closer to 10 minutes, 5 minutes, or 3 minutes." According to the Commissioner, under any of these time frames, "it was reasonably foreseeable that this child care arrangement was insufficient to provide the supervision necessary for a preschool-age child, such as G.B." We disagree. Clause 3 specifically directs us to consider the "length of absence" in determining whether supervision was appropriate. Minn. Stat. § 626.556, subd. 2(g)(3). It is one thing for a caregiver to step away from her wards for a brief period of time to complete other necessary tasks. It is another thing entirely to leave children alone for long periods of time with a single young supervisor. In other words, the length of the absence matters.10 But we are missing a factual determination on the length of Restorff's absence-a fact that is both material in this case and *24explicitly called for by the Act. And we cannot make a factual finding on this issue ourselves. See, e.g. , Gibson v. Civil Serv. Bd. , 285 Minn. 123, 171 N.W.2d 712, 715 (1969) ("The functions of fact-finding, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and determining the weight to be given to it and the inferences to be drawn therefrom rest with the administrative board."); Mitchell Transp., Inc. v. R.R. & Warehouse Comm'n , 272 Minn. 121, 137 N.W.2d 561, 567 (1965) ("[Q]uestions of fact and of policy are for administrative and not judicial determination."); Morey v. Sch. Bd. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 492, Austin Pub. Schs. , 271 Minn. 445, 136 N.W.2d 105, 108 (1965) ("[M]aking findings of fact is the obligation of the administrative body and is not a function to be performed by the court in the first instance.").11 Under our jurisprudence, when an "agency's findings are insufficient, 'the case can be either remanded for additional findings or reversed for lacking substantial evidence supporting the decision.' " In re A.D. , 883 N.W.2d at 258 (quoting Dokmo v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin , 459 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Minn. 1990) ). Remand "is appropriate 'to permit further evidence to be taken or additional findings to be made in accordance with the applicable law.' " Id. (quoting Dokmo , 459 N.W.2d at 675 ). Here, the length of time the children were outside without Restorff is an important fact that we cannot determine on our own. In addition, the Commissioner was without the benefit of the interpretation we announce today in making her final agency decision. Accordingly, we remand12 to the Commissioner *25for additional fact finding and a revised agency decision.13 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals and remand to the Commissioner for additional fact finding and a revised agency decision. Reversed and remanded Dissenting, Hudson, J. DISSENT

Kroll Ontrack, LLC v. Comm'r Revenue · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Rodriguez v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Cent. Hous. Assocs., LP v. Olson · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Defatte · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Pakhnyuk · 2019 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Rogers · 2019 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State v. Atwood · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Overweg · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Robinson · 2019 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC v. Comm'r of Revenue · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Scovel · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Harstad v. City of Woodbury · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Decker · 2018 1 citation [Dissent]

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

LaPenotiere v. State · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Associated Bank, N.A. v. Comm'r of Revenue · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Laymon v. Minn. Premier Props., LLC · 2018 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

In re · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Great N. Ins. Co. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. · 2018 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Washington · 2018 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Sanchez v. Dahlke Trailer Sales, Inc. · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Muccio · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Renee Anita Vasko · 2017 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Nina Wilson v. Mortgage Resource Center, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Willie Edd Reynolds v. State of Minnesota · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Kristyn Nicole Schouweiler · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. David Lee Haywood · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Mary Cocchiarella v. Donald Driggs · 2016 5 citations

+ 5 more citations in this opinion.

City of Oronoco v. Fitzpatrick Real Estate, LLC v. Whitney National Bank of New Orleans, Louisiana · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. From United South Central Public Schools No. 2134 · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Ryan Contracting Company v. O'Neill & Murphy, LLP · 2016 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Ali M. Shire v. Rosemount, Inc., Self-Insured/Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC, Relators, and Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., Crosstown Surgery Center, and Minnesota Department of Human Services/BRS, Intervenors. · 2016 3 citations

+ 3 more citations in this opinion.

Yvette Ford v. Minneapolis Public Schools · 2016 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Angela Mary Lennartson, Katie Foss · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Allan v. R.D. Offutt Co. · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Thomas Raymond Struzyk · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

Harvey Ray Dupey v. State of Minnesota · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Brandon Wayne Riggs · 2015 4 citations

+ 4 more citations in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Carl Lee Nodes · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Robert Meeker v. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company · 2015 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State of Minnesota v. Roger Benedict Schmid · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Joan M. Nichols v. State of Minnesota, Office of the Secretary of State · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Nichols v. State · 2015 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Seagate Technology, LLC v. Western Digital Corporation, Sining Mao · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth v. Brian Lee · 2014 2 citations

+ 2 more citations in this opinion.

Gary Ekdahl, Relator v. Independent School District 213, Self-Insured/Riverport Insurance Services · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Gordon Brown · 2014 2 citations

7 72 (Minn. 2012) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012)). “[W]hen the words of a law . . .

OPINION WRIGHT, Justice. Respondent Citizens State Bank Nor-wood Young America (Bank) seeks to set aside, under Minnesota’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (MUFTA), certain transfers made between appellants Gordon1 *58and Judy Brown pursuant to their uncontested marital dissolution judgment and decree. The district court granted summary judgment to the Bank, and the court of appeals affirmed. We granted the Browns’ petition for further review to address whether MUFTA applies to fraudulent transfers made pursuant to an uneon-tested marital dissolution decree. We now conclude that MUFTA applies to such transfers and that the record supports the district court’s findings that Gordon Brown made certain transfers with the intent to defraud his creditors. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s judgment that sets aside the transfers and allows the Bank to levy execution on assets fraudulently transferred to the extent necessary to satisfy the Bank’s claim. However, to the extent the district court’s decision pertains to assets that were not transferred, we reverse. I. Gordon Brown guaranteed certain commercial loans that the Bank made to TCB Tool Corporation and Cool Air International. Both TCB Tool and Cool Air defaulted on their respective loans, and Gordon Brown failed to satisfy his obligations under his personal guarantee. On January 8, 2010, the Bank sued Gordon Brown to enforce the personal guarantee. Gordon Brown’s wife Judy Brown was not named as a party to the lawsuit. The district court entered a default judgment against Gordon Brown on June 29, 2010. The judgment authorized the Bank to collect the remaining balance on the two loans plus interest, costs, and attorney fees. While the Bank’s lawsuit was pending, Gordon Brown petitioned to dissolve his 23-year marriage to Judy Brown. At that time, he was 93 years old and Judy Brown was 55. The Browns subsequently executed a marital termination agreement (MTA) on October 5, 2010. The district court judge in the dissolution ease found the MTA to be “fair and reasonable” and incorporated its terms into a dissolution judgment and decree entered on October 13, 2010. After the divorce,2 the Browns continued to live together. Under the dissolution judgment and decree, Gordon Brown was awarded the Browns’ home, valued in the dissolution judgment and decree at $421,900; his 1999 Cadillac; the rights to his 401(k) worth less than $140,000; a checking account, valued at less than $3,000; and corporate stock, valued at less than $80,000. He also accepted sole responsibility for joint debt obligations worth more than $270,000. In addition, Gordon Brown retained personal guarantee obligations of approximately $8.8 million, which he had entered into alone. Pursuant to the dissolution judgment and decree, Gordon Brown transferred to Judy Brown an RBC Wealth Management account, valued at approximately $1.2 million, and his one-half interest in Pontoon Partnership, which owned a commercial property as its only asset. These two assets that Gordon Brown transferred to Judy Brown secured a $1.1 million Minnesota Bank and Trust (MB & T) loan. Judy Brown retained her MB & T savings account valued at $84,000. The Bank was unable to collect from Gordon Brown on the original judgment *59and brought this action under MUFTA, Minn. Stat. §§ 513.41-51 (2012), to levy execution on the assets Gordon Brown transferred to Judy Brown. The Bank alleged that the transfers were made with the intent to defraud the Bank because the transfers exhibited six of the eleven factors enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b). The Browns responded separately, denying the allegations in the complaint. The Bank moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted based on the conclusion that the Browns “engaged in actual fraud as shown by the existence of a number of [badges of fraud].” The district court specifically found that Gordon Brown transferred assets to an insider, concealed the transfers from the Bank, transferred substantially all of his assets, did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the transfers, became insolvent after the transfers, and transferred the assets shortly after his debt to the Bank became delinquent. The district court rejected the Browns’ argument that the transfers were not fraudulent because they were made pursuant to a marital dissolution decree, observing that the decree was entered pursuant to the Browns’ voluntary MTA. Accordingly, the district court determined that the transfers were voidable under MUFTA. The Browns appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. Citizens State Bank Norwood Young Am. v. Brown, 829 N.W.2d 634, 642 (Minn.App.2013). After concluding that MUFTA applies to transfers made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree, the court of appeals applied the common law presumption that transfers made between spouses are fraudulent, id. at 639-40, and determined that the undisputed facts “support[] a singular conclusion that the Browns had actual intent to defraud” the Bank, id. at 638. We granted the Browns’ petition for review. II. Laws allowing creditors to void fraudulent transfers trace their origins to the Statute of 13 Elizabeth, adopted in England in 1571. 1571, 13 Eliz., c. 5; BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., 511 U.S. 531, 540, 114 S.Ct. 1757, 128 L.Ed.2d 556 (1994). See generally Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act prefatory note, 7A U.L.A. pt. 2, at 4 (2006). The statute allowed creditors to void transfers designed “to delay, hinder or defraud creditors and others.” 13 Eliz., c. 5. English courts relied on “badges of fraud” — certain suspicious circumstances that frequently accompanied fraudulent transfers — to determine whether a transfer was fraudulent. See BFP, 511 U.S. at 540-41, 114 S.Ct. 1757; Twyne’s Case, (1601) 76 Eng. Rep. 809 (Star Chamber) 812-14; 3 Co. Rep. 80b, 81a. These badges of fraud included that the debtor retained possession of the property after the transfer, made the transfer in secret, or made the transfer after being sued. Twyne’s Case, 76 Eng. Rep. at 812-14; 3 Co. Rep. at 81a. American states later embraced fraudulent transfer law. See, e.g., Va. Rev. Code, ch. 101, ¶2 (1819); see also Isaac A. McBeth & Landon C. Davis III, Bulls, Bears, and Pigs: Revisiting the Legal Minefield of Virginia Fraudulent Transfer Law, 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 273, 277 (2011). And Minnesota’s territorial legislature enacted Minnesota’s first such law in 1851.3 Minn. Rev. Terr. Stat., ch. 64 *60(1851). This territorial law provided that “[e]very conveyance ... made with, the intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors ... shall be void.” Id., § 1. Seeking to standardize these laws, the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act in 1918. Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act prefatory note, 7A U.L.A. pt. 2, at 4. Minnesota adopted the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act in 1921. Act of Apr. 20,1921, ch. 415,1921 Minn. Laws 642. The Uniform Laws Commission updated the uniform law in 1984 with the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which Minnesota adopted in 1987. Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act prefatory note, 7A U.L.A. pt. 2, at 5-7; see also Act of Apr. 7, 1987, eh. 19, 1987 Minn. Laws 28.4 MUFTA’s purpose is aligned with that of Minnesota’s predecessor laws — to prevent debtors from placing property that is otherwise available for the payment of their debts out of the reach of their creditors. Kummet v. Thielen, 210 Minn. 302, 306, 298 N.W. 245, 247 (1941). To that end, MUFTA includes both actual and constructive fraud provisions. See Minn. Stat. §§ 513.44, .45.5 The actual fraud provision, at issue in this case, requires the fact-finder to conclude that the debtor made a transfer “with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.” Minn. Stat. § 513.44(a)(1). Because the intent to defraud creditors is rarely susceptible of direct proof, courts continue to rely on “badges of fraud” to determine whether a transfer is fraudulent. Shields v. Goldetsky (In re Butler), 552 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Minn.1996) (citing Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act prefatory note, 7A U.L.A. 639 (1985)). Badges of fraud in MUFTA include a transfer made to an “insider” or transfers that comprise “substantially all the debtor’s assets.” Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(1), (5). III. A threshold question that we must address is whether MUFTA applies to transfers made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree. We review this question of statutory interpretation de novo. See Clark v. Lindquist, 683 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Minn.2004). In construing MUFTA, our charge is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the Legislature. Schatz v. Interfaith Care Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 643, 649 (Minn.2012); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012). We construe nontechnical words and phrases according to their plain meanings. Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Minn. 2012) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012)). “[W]hen the words of a law ... are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit.” Haghighi v. Russ.-Am. Broad. Co., 577 N.W.2d 927, 929 (Minn.1998) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 645.16) (internal quotation marks omitted). Minnesota Statutes § 513.44(a)(1) provides that “[a] transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor ... if the debtor made the transfer ... with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor.” The term “transfer” is defined as “every mode, di*61rect or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset.” Minn. Stat. § 513.41(12). Because a transfer made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree is a mode of “disposing of or parting with” assets, it falls within the statutory definition of “transfer.” Our construction is consistent with other states’ interpretations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. This is significant to our analysis because, “[u]ni-form laws are interpreted to effect their general purpose to make uniform the laws of those states that enact them.” Johnson v. Murray, 648 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Minn. 2002) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.22 (2012)). “Accordingly, we give great weight to other states’ interpretations of a uniform law.” Id. at 670. Several states have concluded that their versions of the Act apply to an uncontested marital dissolution decree. See, e.g., Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657, 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 390, 74 P.3d 166, 174 (2003) (“[California’s] UFTA applies to property transfers under [marriage settlement agreements].”); Estes v. Titus, 481 Mich. 573, 751 N.W.2d 493, 495 (2008) (holding that Michigan’s UFTA “applies to a transfer of property made pursuant to a property settlement agreement incorporated in a divorce judgment”); Fadel v. El-Tobgy, 245 Or.App. 696, 264 P.3d 150,155-56 (2011) (concluding that transfers of assets during a divorce can violate Oregon’s UFTA). Indeed, our research has produced no legal authority to the contrary. Although MUFTA provides exclusions for contributions “made to a qualified charitable or religious organization” as defined under MinmStat. § 513.41(12), a similar exception to the definition of “transfer” made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree does not exist. And we construe enumerated exceptions in a law to exclude all others. In re Estate of Braa, 452 N.W.2d 686, 688 (Minn.1990); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.19 (2012). Accordingly, we do not exempt transfers made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree from the statutory definition of “transfer” in Minn. Stat. § 513.41(12). We, therefore, hold that a transfer made pursuant to an uncontested6 marital dissolution decree may be set aside as fraudulent under MUFTA. In doing so, we do not reach the broader question of whether MUFTA applies to contested marital dissolution decrees. IV. Having determined that MUFTA applies to uncontested marital dissolution decrees, we next consider whether the district court erred by entering summary judgment in favor of the Bank. We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the district court correctly applied the law. Stringer v. Minn. Vikings Football Club, LLC, 705 N.W.2d 746, 754 (Minn.2005); see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Odenthal v. Minn. Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 649 N.W.2d 426, 429 (Minn.2002). To defeat a summary judgment motion, the nonmoving party must do more than rest on averments or *62denials of the adverse party’s pleadings. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. Rather, when the moving party makes out a prima facie case, the burden of establishing that the facts raise a genuine issue falls to the opposing party. Thiele v. Stick, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn.1988). Historically, in a contest between a wife and the creditors of her husband, a presumption of fraudulent conveyance existed that required affirmative proof to rebut. See, e.g., Minneapolis Stock-Yards & Packing Co. v. Halonen, 56 Minn. 469, 471, 57 N.W. 1135, 1135-36 (1894). This presumption continued under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act. Kummet, 210 Minn, at 305, 298 N.W. at 246. Under MUFTA, however, whether a transfer is made to a spouse or other “insider” is one of eleven badges of fraud provided in Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(1). See Minn. Stat. §§ 513.41 (7)(i)(A), (11), .44(b)(1). Here, we need not decide whether the marital presumption survives the adoption of MUFTA because we conclude that the Browns were not spouses at the time of the transfers. Several badges of fraud are relevant to this appeal: (1) “the transfer ... was to an insider”; (2) “the transfer was of substantially all the debtor’s assets”; (3) the debt- or failed to receive reasonably equivalent value for the asset transferred or obligation incurred; (4) “the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made”; (5) “before the transfer was made or obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit”; (6) “the transfer occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred”; and (7) “the debt- or retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer.” Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b).7 In analyzing these factors, we are mindful that the definition of asset “does not include ... property to the extent it is generally exempt under nonbankruptcy law.” Minn. Stat. § 513.41(2)(ii). A. We first consider whether the transfers were to an “insider.” Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(1). Spouses fall within the definition of “insiders.” Minn. Stat. § 513.41 (7)(i)(A), (11). The Bank argues, and the lower courts held, that Judy Brown was Gordon Brown’s spouse at the time of the transfers. However, under MUFTA’s definition of when a transfer of personal property occurs, the operative point in time is when the transfer is “so far perfected that a creditor on a simple contract cannot acquire a judicial lien” without resort to MUFTA. Minn-Stat. § 513.46(l)(ii). The Browns were still spouses when they signed the MTA. However, the assets that Gordon Brown subsequently transferred to Judy Brown were not yet beyond the reach of a contract creditor. Therefore, Gordon Brown did not transfer the assets within the meaning of MUFTA when he and Judy Brown signed the MTA. Rather, the transfers occurred, at the earliest, when the Dakota County District Court entered the dissolution judgment and decree, which simultaneously dissolved the Browns’ marriage. See Minn. Stat. § 518.06, subd. 1 (2012) (providing that a dissolution of marriage terminates the marital relationship between spouses). Accordingly, the Browns were not spouses when they transferred the assets. *63Our conclusion that the Browns were not spouses when the transfers were made, however, does not preclude a finding that Judy Brown was an insider. The definition of “ ‘¡Tjnsider’ includes ... a relative.” Minn. Stat. § 513.41(7)(i)(A) (emphasis added). In this context, the term “includes” indicates that the definition is nonexclusive. LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn.2012). In addition, the comments to the Act provide that “a court may find a person living with an individual for an extended time in the same household or as a permanent companion to have the kind of close relationship intended to be covered by the term ‘insider.’” Unif. Fraudulent Transfer Act § 1, 7A U.L.A. pt. 2, at 17 cmt. 7 (2006). The Browns were married for 23 years, and they continued to live with one another after their divorce, demonstrating a continued close relationship. The Browns contend that “[i]n today’s economy, it is often the case that economic factors make it impossible for divorced spouses to live separately.” But the Browns submitted no evidence that either spouse was financially incapable of living on his or her own after the divorce. Indeed, the evidence demonstrates otherwise. The dissolution judgment and decree establishes that, after the divorce, Gordon Brown owned the marital home and Judy Brown had a substantial positive net worth. The Browns must do more than rest on “general averments” to rebut specific facts showing that they continued to have a close relationship after their divorce. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05. Rather, they must “present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. On the record before us, they failed to do so. The Connecticut Supreme Court addressed a similar question in Canty v. Otto, 304 Conn. 546, 41 A.3d 280 (2012). In Canty, a creditor sued the debtor’s former spouse under Connecticut’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Id. at 285. The creditor sought to set aside transfers made between the defendant and the debt- or in their divorce. Id. The Canty court concluded that “the transfer of [the debt- or’s] property to the defendant — his former wife with whom he continued to reside — constituted transfers to an insider.” Id. at 294. Here, the Browns also continued to live together after their divorce. They have presented no evidence showing that their previously close relationship changed. Based on these undisputed facts, the district court properly concluded that Gordon Brown’s transfers to Judy Brown were to an insider. B. The district court and the court of appeals concluded that Gordon Brown transferred substantially all of his assets in the divorce, which constitutes another badge of fraud. See Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(5). The Browns argue that this conclusion is erroneous because, after the dissolution, Gordon Brown owned the home, valued at $421,900, and his 401(k) account, valued at less than $140,000. However, the definition of “assets” under MUFTA excludes “property to the extent it is generally exempt under nonbankrupt-cy law.” Minn. Stat. § 513.41(2)(ii). Therefore, to determine whether Gordon Brown transferred substantially all of his assets, we do not consider exempt property. A debtor’s 401 (k) is exempt from creditors’ claims. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1003(a), 1056(d)(1) (2012); Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 759-60, 112 S.Ct. 2242, 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992). This exemption is not capped at a designated amount. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(1); Patterson, 504 U.S. at 759-60, 112 S.Ct. 2242. Consequently, Gordon Brown’s 401 (k) is not an asset for purposes of MUFTA. Similarly, at the time of the *64dissolution, a homestead was exempt up to a value of $860,000. Minn. Stat. §§ 510.01, 510.02, subd. 1 (2012); 84 Minn. Reg. 1460, 1461 (Apr. 26, 2010). Therefore, only $61,900 of the home’s value is an asset under MUFTA. Moreover, Gordon Brown executed a quitclaim deed in October 2009, transferring the home to Judy Brown one year before the marital dissolution decree was entered. Thus, Gordon Brown did not transfer the home to Judy Brown pursuant to the dissolution judgment and decree. Judy Brown transferred it to him. The record establishes that, before the divorce, Gordon Brown had the following nonexempt assets: a checking account with a balance of less than $3,000; corporate stock, valued at $80,000; an RBC account, valued at approximately $1.2 million; and a one-half interest in Pontoon Partnership, with a net value of approximately $300,000.8 Therefore, the value of Gordon Brown’s assets before the dissolution exceeded $1.5 million. Of these assets, Gordon Brown transferred all but the checking account and the corporate stock. Accordingly, because Gordon Brown transferred substantially all of his assets, another badge of fraud is present. C. The next badge of fraud found by the district court is Gordon Brown’s failure to receive reasonably equivalent value for the assets he transferred. See Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(8). “Value is given for a transfer or an obligation if, in exchange for the transfer or obligation, property is transferred or an antecedent debt is secured or satisfied....” Minn. Stat. § 513.43(a). The Browns do not argue that any debt was secured or satisfied pursuant to the divorce. We, therefore, consider the property that Judy Brown transferred to Gordon Brown when analyzing whether she gave reasonably equivalent value for the transfers Gordon Brown made and the obligations he incurred. As addressed in section IV.B. of this opinion, the value of assets Gordon Brown transferred to Judy Brown was approximately $1.5 million (the one-half interest in Pontoon Partnership, valued at approximately $300,000, and the RBC account, valued at approximately $1.2 million). By contrast, the only property that Judy Brown transferred to Gordon Brown was the home valued at $421,900-$360,000 of which was exempt. In light of the fact that Gordon Brown also assumed sole responsibility for more than $270,000 of the Browns’ joint debt obligations, we conclude that Gordon Brown did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for assets worth approximately $1.5 million that he transferred to Judy Brown. D. We next consider whether “the debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred.” Minn. Stat. § 513.44(b)(9). Under MUFTA, a debtor *65is insolvent if “the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than all of the debtor’s assets.” Minn. Stat. § 513.42(a). Because the definition of “insolvent” uses the term “asset,” exempt property is not included in determining whether Gordon Brown was insolvent after the transfers. See Minn. Stat. § 513.41 (2)(ii). It is clear that after the divorce Gordon Brown was insolvent. Gordon Brown’s assets after the divorce included a checking account valued at less than $3,000, corporate stock valued at less than $80,000, and the non-exempt value of the home. In addition, Gordon Brown held more than $270,000 of marital debt. Gordon Brown, therefore, had a negative net worth even without accounting for the nearly $9 million in personal guarantee obligations he retained. In light of these facts, the district court correctly concluded that Gordon Brown was insolvent after the transfers. E. Likewise, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Gordon Brown had been sued or threatened with a lawsuit when the marital dissolution decree was entered. See MinmStat. § 513.44(b)(4). The Bank sued Gordon Brown on January 8, 2010, to enforce his personal guarantee. Approximately nine months later, in October 2010, the Browns signed the MTA, and the dissolution judgment and decree was entered shortly thereafter. F. The next badge of fraud we consider is whether the transfers “occurred shortly before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred.” MinmStat. § 513.44(b)(10). The parties and the district court agree that Gordon Brown incurred a debt to the Bank on June 29, 2010 — the date that the default judgment was entered in the original lawsuit. For the purpose of addressing this badge of fraud, we accept June 29, 2010, as the date the debt was incurred. The transfers occurred on October 13, 2010, following entry of the marital dissolution decree. The Browns argue that they had no control over when the marital dissolution decree was entered. But this argument is unavailing because Gordon Brown set the transfers in motion when he petitioned to dissolve the Browns’ marriage on March 15, 2010. When Gordon Brown initiated the transfers, he already had been sued by the Bank and reasonably would have anticipated that he would soon incur a substantial debt. Therefore, we conclude that the transfers were initiated shortly before and actually were made shortly after a substantial debt was incurred. G. The final factor that we consider is whether “the debtor retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer.” MinmStat. § 513.44(b)(2). The parties dispute whether Gordon Brown retained control of the RBC account after the divorce. The Bank presented copies of statements of the RBC account showing that Gordon Brown’s name appeared on the account several months after the divorce. But statements from the RBC account submitted by the Browns establish that Judy Brown’s name was on the account by October 2011. Despite the existence of a factual dispute on this final issue, we conclude that summary judgment was proper. Whether a debtor made a transfer -with fraudulent intent is ordinarily a question of fact. See Underleak v. Scott, 117 Minn. 136, 141, 134 N.W. 731, 733 (1912). But when no genuine issue of material fact exists, the district court may decide the question as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment. See id. at *66141, 134 N.W. at 733; see also Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. Here, six of the eleven badges of fraud were established. The presence of a single badge of fraud may, but does not necessarily, prove fraudulent intent. See, e.g., In re Coffey’s Case, 157 N.H. 156, 949 A.2d 102, 120 (2008); Gilchinsky v. Nat’l Westminster Bank N.J., 159 N.J. 463, 732 A.2d 482, 490 (1999). The presence of several badges of fraud, however, creates an inference of fraud that requires clear evidence of a legitimate purpose to rebut. In re Coffey’s Case, 949 A.2d at 120. The Browns have failed to rebut this inference. Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that Gordon Brown transferred assets in the divorce with the intent to defraud his creditors. The district court erred, however, by allowing the Bank to levy execution on Judy Brown’s MB & T savings account. It is evident from the dissolution judgment and decree that the MB & T savings account was in Judy Brown’s name before the dissolution, and she retained the account in the property division ordered in the marital dissolution decree. As the MB & T savings account was not transferred, it is not a fraudulent transfer to be voided. We, therefore, reverse this aspect of the district court’s decision. However, because the record establishes that Gordon Brown transferred the RBC account and his Pontoon Partnership interest in the divorce, the district court properly authorized the Bank to levy execution on these assets. V. In summary, we conclude that MUFTA applies to transfers made pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree. The transfers at issue here exhibit several badges of fraud and provide conclusive proof of fraudulent intent. On these facts, we affirm the district court’s judgment granting the Bank authority to levy execution on the fraudulently transferred assets to the extent necessary to satisfy the Bank’s claim. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.

State of Minnesota v. Jaimiah Lamar Irby · 2014 2 citations [Dissent]

PAGE, Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent. One of the core constitutional requirements for serving as a district court judge in Minnesota is that the judge must reside in her district during her continuance in office.1 Article VI, Section 4, of the Minnesota Constitution, states in no uncertain terms: “Each judge of the district court in any district shall be a resident of that district at the time of [her] selection and during [her] continuance in office.” (Emphasis added.) In In re Karasov, we determined that Judge Karasov did not reside in her judicial district from July 1, 2009, to September 30, 2009. 805 N.W.2d 255, 268 (Minn.2011). When Judge Kara-sov abandoned her residence within the Fourth Judicial District on July 1, 2009, she no longer met one of the two essential qualifications for holding office — the constitution’s residence requirement — and could not continue in office. It is because she no longer met the constitutional requirements for holding the office of district court judge in the Fourth Judicial District, and not for reasons of judicial discipline, that on July 1, 2009, Judge Karasov forfeited her judicial office. Having forfeited *524her office, Judge Karasov was without authority to preside at the trial of appellant Jaimiah Lamar Irby. Because of this want of authority, I conclude that Irby’s convictions must be reversed and that his case be remanded for trial. I. While my analysis under Article VI, Section 4, resolves the question of whether Judge Karasov had the authority to preside at Irby’s trial, I would reach the same result applying Minn. Stat. § 351.02 (2012). First, unlike the court, I do not question the Legislature’s authority to provide for the removal or other discipline of judges. This authority is set out clearly in our constitution: The legislature may also provide for the retirement, removal or other discipline of any judge who is disabled, incompetent or guilty of conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 9 (emphasis added). It is undisputed that Judge Karasov violated the constitutional requirement that she reside in her district when she moved from her home in the Fourth Judicial District and, from July 1 through September 30, 2009, resided in Chisago City, which is in the Tenth Judicial District. See In re Karasov, 805 N.W.2d at 265, 268. We concluded in In re Karasov that by failing to reside in her district Judge Karasov violated Rule 1.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that “[a] judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.” 805 N.W.2d at 268. We also determined that Judge Ka-rasov’s conduct -violated Rule 1.2 of the code, which states that “[a] judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”2 See In re Karasov, 805 N.W.2d at 268. It seems clear to me that such misconduct — which also, of course, directly violates the constitution’s residence requirement — was prejudicial to the administration of justice. Given the plain language of Article VI, Section 9, the court’s concern about legislative encroachment on our power to determine judicial discipline is misguided. In view of the constitution’s express grant of authority to the Legislature, there simply is no separation of powers question presented here. Thus, the only question is whether Minn. Stat. § 351.02(4) applies to the office of district court judge. I conclude that it does. Minnesota Statutes § 351.02 provides, in pertinent part: Every office shall become vacant on the happening of either of the following events, before the expiration of the term of such office: [[Image here]] (4) the incumbent’s ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state, or, if the office is local, of the district, county or city for which the incumbent was elected or appointed, or within which the duties of the office are required to be discharged. Section 351.02 states that an office “shall become vacant” upon the happening of any one of several enumerated events, one of which is the officer’s “ceasing to be an inhabitant” of the district for which she was elected or appointed. The statute’s plain language indicates that it is the *525change of residence itself that causes a vacancy as a matter of law. In this respect, the statute itself is the mechanism by which the underlying constitutional requirement of residency is given effect.3 As the court implicitly acknowledges, section 351.02’s expansive reference to “every office” must be construed to encompass the office of district court judge. See State ex. rel. Smallwood v. Windom, 131 Minn. 401, 407-08, 155 N.W. 629, 632 (1915) (applying predecessor statutes, Minn. Rev. Laws § 2667 (1905) and Minn. Gen. Stat. § 5723 (1913), to municipal judgeship). The court holds, however, that because a district court judgeship is not a “local” office, Judge Karasov’s conduct falls within the scope of section 351.02 only if she “ceas[ed] to be an inhabitant of the state.” Because she continued to reside within Minnesota at all times, the court concludes, section 351.02(4) has no application here. In reaching its conclusion that section 351.02 does not apply in this case, the court either misreads or ignores the plain meaning of the words “local” and “district,” in violation of our canons of construction. “The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2012). When the words of a law are clear and free from all ambiguity, we may not disregard the letter of the law in pursuit of what we perceive to be its spirit. Id. When construing a statute, “words and phrases are construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage.” Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1) (2012). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines the word “local” as: “a. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular place ...; b. Of or relating to a city, town, or district rather than a larger area: state and local government.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1029 (5th ed.2011). “District” is defined most commonly as “[a] division of an area, as for administrative purposes.” Id. at 525. It is true that a district court judge is a state officer “in certain senses of the term.” See Brown v. Smallwood, 130 Minn. 492, 493-94, 153 N.W. 953, 954 (1915) (“It is conceded that the municipal judge is a state officer in certain senses of the term.”). Indeed, Article VI, Section 3, provides the district court with statewide jurisdiction over all civil and criminal cases. Moreover, district court judges serve within the judicial branch of state government. But none of that makes the office of judge of the Fourth Judicial District a statewide office. By requiring that those who serve as district court judges be appointed to, or elected by the citizens of, a specific district and then live within “that” district rather than some other or larger area, our constitution’s framers clearly intended that judges reside in a particular place constituting a division of the state or geographic unit marked out by law within the state. Although not determinative, I would note that individual counties are required to furnish facilities for the district courts. Minn. Stat. § 484.77 (2012). I would also note that, although the district courts collectively exercise statewide jurisdiction, an individual district court judge may serve as a judge in a judicial district other than *526her own only when expressly authorized to do so by the Chief Justice. Minn. Stat. § 2.724, subd. 1 (2012). What is determinative is that those who hold the office of district court judge are elected from a particular place set out by law “by the voters from the area which they are to serve,” Minn. Const. art. VI, § 7; and those elections are local and of no particular concern to the rest of the state. For those appointed to the office of district court judge, the appointment must be to a particular area or place. Minn. Const. art. VI, § 4. And whether elected or appointed, our constitution mandates that judges reside within that particular area or place during their continuation in office. Id. The court rejects this analysis, reasoning that state legislators are also elected from specific districts — in their case house or senate districts — but are considered state office holders. See Minn. Const. art. IV, § 6; Lundquist v. Leonard, 652 N.W.2d 33, 36 (Minn.2002). However, state legislators are elected to a state body — the Minnesota Legislature. See Minn. Const. art. IV. District court judges are elected to serve a specific district court and may only serve outside that district as noted above. See Minn. Const. art. VI, § 7; Minn. Stat. § 2.724, subd. I.4 The State contends that interpreting section 351.02(4) to include district court judges results in the automatic forfeiture of judicial office when the judge moves outside of her district. The State argues that such a “self-executing” statute would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s system for disciplining judges, which requires the Board on Judicial Standards to make disciplinary recommendations to this court. See Minn. Stat. §§ 490A.01-.03 (2012). The State maintains that, “[s]hort of legislative impeachment, the only way to remove a judge from office is by order of this Court.” Finally, the State observes that Minn. Stat. § 2.722, subd. 4(a) (2012), requires us to certify a vacancy to the Governor before the Governor can fill the vacancy. Based on this observation, the State argues that a judicial office cannot be forfeited until our court declares it vacant. The State is wrong on all counts. First, the State’s contention that section 351.02 is “self-executing” is only true in the narrowest sense of the term. Our court has the ultimate authority to determine whether a judge resided outside of her district and, if so, when that change of residence occurred. Cf. Rule 14(e), Rules of the Board on Judicial Standards (describing our review of the hearing panel’s recommendation of discipline). Therefore, removing a judge from office still requires a decision from this court. Second, this case illustrates that giving effect to section 351.02 does not circumvent the Legislature’s system for disciplining and removing judges. Consistent with *527the statutory regime, the Board on Judicial Standards filed a formal complaint against Judge Karasov for living outside of her district, and a three-member panel held a hearing on the complaint and made a recommendation to this court. In re Karasov, 805 N.W.2d 255, 258-59, 263 (Minn.2011). This process conformed with the statutory regime the Legislature envisioned. See Minn. Stat. §§ 490A.01-.03. I also note that the “self-executing” nature of section 351.02 is irrelevant to the correct construction of the plain language in subsection (4). The decision that a vacancy has arisen will always have a retroactive effect and in this sense the statute is “self-executing.” But that result does not alter the constitutional and statutory requirements for a district court judge to be elected or appointed from a particular district and thereafter to reside in that district continuously. The State’s final observation, that section 2.722, subdivision 4, requires us to certify a vacancy before the Governor can fill the vacancy, is irrelevant. Section 2.722 addresses what occurs after a vacancy arises, that is, how the vacancy is to be filled, if it is to be filled at all. Section 2.722 does not purport to address how vacancies are created in the first instance. Nor does it address how, when, or why, a district court judge is removed from office. That section 351.02 may complicate the system for determining judicial vacancies does not deprive that section of its validity or mean that it does not comport with our system for filling vacancies. As discussed, how the office of district court judge becomes vacant is not determinative of how the vacancy is filled. The court makes a similar argument to that of the State, although relying more on constitutional considerations. The court contends that including district court judges within the definition of “local office” as I do “implies that the Legislature has supremacy over judicial discipline through a self-executing statute.” On this basis the court invokes the constitutional-avoidance canon, see In re Civil Commitment of Giem, 742 N.W.2d 422, 429 (Minn.2007), to conclude that district court judges occupy a statewide office. For the sake of argument, if it is assumed that the court is correct that my interpretation implies legislative supremacy over judicial discipline, that concern would seem to be present regardless of whether the office of district court judge is a statewide or local office. The court agrees, at least implicitly, that section 351.01(4) would apply if Judge Karasov had not merely moved out of her district but had moved her residence across Minnesota’s border to one of our neighboring states, in which case her office would have “become vacant.” Under the court’s reasoning, the statute would still be self-executing, thereby implying the Legislature’s supremacy over judicial discipline. Therefore, the constitutional concern is present even under the court’s interpretation of “local office.” The court could avoid this game of judicial whack-a-mole by recognizing our role in determining whether a vacancy has arisen. For these reasons, I conclude that Minn. Stat. § 351.02(4) applies to this case because, even though district court judges are employed within a statewide system and have statewide power, the office of district court judge is a local office. Based on that conclusion, I also conclude that when Judge Karasov ceased being a resident of the Fourth Judicial District on July 1, 2009, her office became vacant. II. Because I conclude that under the Minnesota Constitution and Minn. Stat. *528§ 351.02, Judge Karasov did not have the authority to preside over Irby’s trial, it is necessary to consider whether Judge Ka-rasov’s actions may be given effect under the de facto judge doctrine. I conclude that Judge Karasov’s acts cannot be retroactively ratified under the de facto judge doctrine. “A de facto judge is a judge operating under color of law but whose authority is procedurally defective.” State v. Harris, 667 N.W.2d 911, 920 n. 5 (Minn.2003) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The acts of a de facto judge, actually occupying the office and transacting business, are valid.” Windom, 131 Minn. at 420-21, 155 N.W. at 637 (applying de facto judge doctrine “[t]o avoid useless controversy or litigation”); see Carli v. Rhener, 27 Minn. 292, 293, 7 N.W. 139, 139 (1880) (“The acts of [a de facto] officer are valid as respects the public and persons interested therein, and as to them cannot be questioned.”). But the de facto judge doctrine does not apply to “case[s] where the defect in the underlying statute ‘is not merely technical but embodies a strong policy concerning the proper administration of judicial business.’ ” Harris, 667 N.W.2d at 920 n. 5 (quoting Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 535-36, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed.2d 671 (1962) (plurality opinion)). The defect in Judge Karasov’s authority was not “merely technical”; it was of constitutional magnitude. As I noted at the outset, the Minnesota Constitution establishes only two requirements for qualification to serve as a district court judge: (1) residence within the district in which the judge serves; and (2) that the judge be “learned in the law.” Plainly, the fact that the residence requirement is a constitutional requirement for service as a district court judge is a reflection of Minnesota’s commitment to a “strong policy” that its district court judges be members of the communities in which they serve. Judge Karasov’s conduct violated this policy and, as a consequence, she was not a de facto judge. III. Having concluded that Judge Karasov vacated her judicial office as a matter of law, the only suitable remedy is to reverse Irby’s convictions. “Ordinarily we limit our review of errors to which the defendant did not object at trial to those constituting plain error affecting substantial rights,” but we have recognized that plain-error analysis is inappropriate “[i]n a case involving a fundamental question of judicial authority.” Harris, 667 N.W.2d at 920. Accordingly, Irby is entitled to a trial before a duly-authorized district court judge.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

Axelberg v. Commissioner of Public Safety · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re the Civil Commitment of Ince · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Melchert-Dinkel · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

In re the Welfare of J.H. · 2014 1 citation

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.

State v. Nelson · 2014 7 citations

+ 7 more citations in this opinion.

White v. City of Elk River · 2013 1 citation