In Re Sholdan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deciding the fact that the debtor had filed for bankruptcy “immediately upon the heels of’ the allegedly fraudulent transfer was relevant to a finding of intent to defraud
• finding that the bankruptcy court properly concluded that there was “ample evidence extrinsic to the mere conversion of assets that showed fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor”
• approving badges of fraud approach to determine whether debtor acted with “actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” under Minnesota fraudulent transfer statute in ruling on objection to homestead exemption
• affirming denial of homestead exemption where debtor liquidated nonexempt assets and purchased new home in contemplation of bankruptcy with intent to defraud creditors
• “Given the fact that direct evidence of fraud is rare, a court in most instances can only infer fraud by considering circumstantial evidence.”
• “[UJnder section 513.44 of Minnesota’s enactment of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), a debtor may not claim a homestead exemption when he or she transfers the property ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ creditors”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).