Mackall, Crounse & Moore, PLC has joined Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C.

The newly formed DeWitt Mackall Crounse & Moore S.C. will provide clients with enhanced legal services
and efficiencies as well as access to more than 100 attorneys practicing in nearly 30 areas of
law in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Dismiss this message


News & Education

Back to Minnesota Articles

Filter by:

To Love And To Cherish, Till Debt Do Us Part – Sacrificing Marriage To Defraud Bank

There are certainly legitimate, good faith methods of estate planning and asset protection that enable the proactive insulation and preservation of assets. However, unscrupulously playing shell games with assets to avoid paying debt obligations when due is a familiar occurrence to the finance industry or any business trying to recover money owed. It may take the form of fraudulently transferring assets into a trust or offshore account, selling property to a straw man or shell company, or transferring assets to a family member for little to no consideration. It seems the number of creative ways of shifting around assets to put them out of reach of creditors is limited only by the extent of one’s imagination. And a few people have really gone to extremes to avoid paying their debts.

A Minnesota community bank faced such a situation a few years ago. In that case, a commercial debtor used a sham divorce, entered pursuant to an uncontested marital dissolution decree, in order to effectuate numerous fraudulent transfers. The debtor guaranteed approximately $8.8 million of commercial loans the bank made to two business entities. Both of the business entities defaulted on their respective loans, and the debtor failed to satisfy his obligations under his personal guarantee. The bank sued the debtor to enforce the personal guarantee; the debtor’s wife, who was not a guarantor on the loans, was not named as a party to the lawsuit.

While the bank’s lawsuit was pending, the debtor commenced an action to dissolve his 23-year marriage. The debtor entered into a voluntary Marital Termination Agreement (“MTA”) on very favorable terms for his wife, which was ultimately approved by the family court and reduced to a judgment. The MTA transferred a disproportionate share of valuable marital assets out of the debtor’s name and over to his then ex-wife. The net value of the debtor’s individual assets before the dissolution exceeded $1.5 million. The debtor transferred to his wife over $1.3 million of these assets, retaining only a few modestly valued assets and the family home with a non-exempt value of $61,000. On the other hand, the debtor accepted sole responsibility for joint marital debt obligations worth more than $270,000, and the debtor retained his personal loan guarantee obligations to the bank of approximately $8.8 million. These transfers occurred shortly after the bank obtained its judgment on the debtor. Not surprisingly, the bank was unable to collect from the debtor on its judgment. After the divorce the couple continued to live together in the family home.

The bank brought a fraudulent transfer action under the Minnesota Fraudulent Transfer Act (now known as the Minnesota Uniform Voidable Transactions Act, or, “MUVTA”1) in order to seize assets the debtor transferred to his then ex-wife through the Marital Termination Agreement. The bank moved for summary judgment contending that the transfers were made with the intent to defraud the bank based on the existence of several “badges of fraud” as defined in MUVTA. The trial court found that the debtor: 1) transferred assets to an insider (his former wife); 2) concealed the transfers from the bank; 3) transferred substantially all of his assets; 4) did not receive a reasonably equivalent value for the transfers; 5) became insolvent after the transfers; and 6) transferred his assets shortly after his debt to the bank became delinquent.

The bank was successful in its suit, but the debtor appealed, ultimately making it up to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of the transfers and, in so doing, established for the first time that transfers made pursuant to an uncontested MTA and divorce decree can be fraudulent and voidable under Minnesota law. See Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America v. Brown, 849 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. 2014).2 Another important takeaway from the foregoing case is that the Supreme Court held that a couple need not be married for there to be a “transfer of assets to an ‘insider.’” The term “insider” may include individuals living together for an extended time in the same household or as permanent companions. Id. at 63.

The foregoing situation occurs more frequently than one might expect. I have represented several banks on loan recovery matters where the debtors, in order to avoid repaying their debts, moved to “divorce friendly” states, obtained quick uncontested divorces with disproportionate asset allocations to non-debtor spouses, and then immediately moved back to Minnesota and picked their lives right back up as though they were still a blissfully married couple.3

In light of the Citizens State Bank Norwood Young America case, lenders, and other businesses that are owed money (in the form of receivables, judgments, or otherwise), now have the ability to prevent unscrupulous individuals from winning at the asset shell game. With this in mind, do not assume that a debtor’s assets transferred to their [former] spouse in an uncontested divorce (and possibly a contested divorce) are now out of reach. This of course does not mean all divorces are subject to attack under MUVTA. However, it does mean that asset transfers made pursuant to uncontested (and contested) divorce proceedings at suspicious times should be examined with scrutiny and a healthy dose of skepticism.

1 Minnesota Statutes §§ 513.41-.51 (2015).
2 The Supreme Court did not reach the broader question of whether MUVTA applies to contested marital dissolutions.

3 Another frequently used tactic I have encountered in practice is for the non-debtor spouse (or sibling, child or other “insiders”) to establish a new business entity engaged in the same industry as the debtor. The debtor abandons his original business entity, which is often laden with debt, and goes to work for the insider’s new entity as an “employee” (usually paid under the table) doing the same work as the original business, and usually with the same customers. Simultaneously, there is often a series of fraudulent transfers of assets from the original business entity to the new entity- sometimes masked as “sales” of assets.

About the Author

Jack Atnip III is an experienced litigator and creditors’ rights attorney who practices in the areas of Commercial Litigation, Financial Services, Collections/Creditors’ Rights, and Bankruptcy. Contact Jack by email or at (612) 305-1501.


One of the best features about our website articles and blog entries is that they are timely—you get up-to-date information on the law as it exists at the time. The downside is that the law changes, but our older entries don't. That means we can't guarantee you are getting the most current law when reading through past entries.

Please don't take these articles and blog entries and rely on them as legal advice. Give us a call instead, for specific and pointed advice for your particular situation. Note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship, unless you are accepted as a client of the firm.

Our Locations


2 East Mifflin Street, Suite 600
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 255-8891
Get Directions

Greater Milwaukee

13845 Bishop’s Drive, Suite 300
Brookfield, WI 53005
(262) 754-2840
Get Directions


2100 AT&T Tower,
901 Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 305-1400
Get Directions

Get to know us

DeWitt LLP is one of the ten largest law firms based in Wisconsin, with an additional presence in Minnesota. It has nearly 140 attorneys practicing in Madison, Metropolitan Milwaukee and Minneapolis in over 30 legal practice areas, and has the experience to service clients of all scopes and sizes.

Our People
Our Law Firm
Areas of Expertise
News & Education
Contact Us


We are an active and proud member of Lexwork International, an association of mid-sized independent law firms in major cities located throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia and an active member of SCG Legal, an association of more than 140 independent law firms serving businesses in all 50 state capitals and major commercial centers around the world.


Best Lawyers 2013 – 2018
Compass Award 2012
Top 100 Lawyers: National Trial Lawyers Association

  • blf-badge-2016
  • blf-badge-2017
  • Ramac Member Logo
  • blf-badge-2018
  • BLF-Badge-2019


While we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you (an “engagement letter”). You will not be a client of the firm until you receive such an engagement letter.

The best way for you to initiate a possible representation is to call DeWitt Ross & Stevens at 608-255-8891. We will make every effort to put you in touch with a lawyer suited to handle your matter. When you receive an engagement letter from one of our lawyers, you will be our client and we may exchange information freely.

Please click the “OK” button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.