Michael Brandon v. Anesthesia & Pain Management Associates, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the badges of fraud are “not additive” and that “one would hardly expect” to find every factor met in the same case
• reversing trial court’s holding that five factors was insufficient to establish a presumption of fraud and suggesting that even a finding of one factor may be sufficient
• criticizing district court for concluding that five badges of fraud were insufficient to support liability
• finding payments to individual defendants fraudulent conveyances in violation of the UFTA where the payments were intended to prevent a creditor from collecting on his claim
• reversing trial court’s holding that five factors was insufficient to establish a presumption of fraud and suggesting that even a finding of one factor may be sufficient
• reversing trial court’s holding that five factors was insufficient to establish a presumption of fraud and suggesting that even a finding of one factor may be sufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).