Legal Opinion

Murray v. Atwood

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided May 5, 1987No. C7-86-1918Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HUSPENI, Judge.

The trial court found that appellants, James Murray and Frank Gazzola, did not prove that respondents, Charles Atwood and George Smith, fraudulently or preferentially conveyed corporate assets to themselves. Appellants now claim that: the trial court erred when it found Atwood-Smith Realty (ASR) was solvent at the time its assets were transferred to respondents; the trial court erred in determining appellants were not creditors at the time of the conveyances and the trial court erred in finding respondents had no actual intent to defraud appellants. We affirm.

FACTS

During…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kaiser v. Northern States Power Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1984
  2. Snyder Electric Co. v. FlemingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
  3. Neubauer v. CloutierSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1963
  4. Kessel v. KesselCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API