Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 513. AGREEMENTS RELATING TO PROPERTY
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 513.26 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 1986 [Repealed, 1987 c 19 s 12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1966–2000 · leading case: Texas Com. Bank v. Olson, 416 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Texas Com. Bank v. Olson, 416 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 14× “See Minn.Stat. § 513.26 (1986); Snyder Electric Co.”
In Re Tveten, 402 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. 1987). · cites it 2× “” Minn.Stat. § 513.26. Jacoby, Fors-berg, and O'Brien all stand for the proposition that before actual fraudulent intent can be found, “there must appear in evidence some facts or circumstances which are extrinsic to the mere facts of conversion of nonexempt assets into exempt…”
Snyder Elec. Co. v. Fleming, 305 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1981). · cites it 2× “On their claim that Fleming transferred assets with actual intent to defraud them, appellants bear the burden of proof, since the statute involved, Minn.Stat. § 513.26 (1980), provides creditors are to be unaided by “intent presumed in law.”
United States v. Laverne Scherping Loren Scherping Jane Scherping Epsilon Co. C.J.S. Ranch, 187 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “1986) (Argonaut) (applying Minn.Stat. § 513.26); accord Xemas, 689 F.”
Bergquist v. Theisen (In Re Theisen), 45 B.R. 122 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1984). · cites it 4× “The second is Minn.Stat. § 513.26 which provides: Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and future…”
State, Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Thibert, 279 N.W.2d 53 (Minn. 1979). · cites it 5× “Reading the statutory provisions together, the conveyance can be set aside as fraudulent only if (a) in making the conveyance to the trust, Irene had an actual intent to defraud present or future creditors, § 513.26; (b) the conveyance was without fair consideration and rendered…”
Xemas, Inc. v. United States, 689 F. Supp. 917 (D. Minn. 1988). · cites it 3× “Minn. Stat. § 513.26 . The conveyances were also fraudulent as to the United States because they were made without fair consideration and rendered or kept the Spaeths insolvent.”
In Re Sholdan, 217 F.3d 1006 (8th Cir. 2000). “2d at 556 (citing former Minn. Stat. Ann. 513.26) with Minn. Stat.”
In Re Sholdan, 218 B.R. 475 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d at 556 (citing former Minn.Stat. § 513.26). It then reiterated the proposition that before actual fraudulent intent can be found, “there must appear in evidence some facts or circumstances which are intrinsic to the mere facts of conversion of nonexempt assets into exempt and…”
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Cooper, 395 N.W.2d 119 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “26 (1984) of the Fraudulent Conveyancing Act, which states: Every conveyance made and every obligation incurred with actual intent, as distinguished from intent presumed in law, to hinder, delay, or defraud either present or future creditors, is fraudulent as to both present and…”
In Re Olson, 45 B.R. 501 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1984). “2) conveyances made by a person in business or in a business transaction without fair consideration. M.S.A. § 513.24. 3) conveyances made by a person about to incur debts that he cannot pay.”
Johnson v. O'BRIEN, 144 N.W.2d 720 (Minn. 1966). “[2d] 630): “* * * The fact that the grantor may have intended to give a preference to the debt owed his mother and sister is not evidence of an intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors within the meaning of § 513.26.” What we said in Thompson v. Schiek, 171 Minn.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.