stating that "presence of several badges of fraud ... creates an inference of fraud that requires clear evidence of a legitimate purpose to rebut”
How later courts described this case
- stating that "presence of several badges of fraud ... creates an inference of fraud that requires clear evidence of a legitimate purpose to rebut”
- concluding that the term “insider” is nonexclusive in . Minn.Stat. § 513.41(7)(i)(A) and that former spouse was an insider
- explaining that “the nonmoving party must do more than, rest on averments” to defeat a summary judgment motion
- granting creditor summary judgment on “actual fraud,” because it established fraudulent intent and the debtor “failed to rebut” that evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PAGE, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the result.