In the bankruptcy case of Tanya Wiggins v. Diane Reed, the cases were represented by Gerrit M. Pronske and David W. Elmquist, respectively. Pronske stated three unique things seen in this case is: fraudulence, the debtor has transferred assets and has not gotten correct amount in return (lack of equivalent value), and the asset that is transferred that is not otherwise exempt from creditors. There was a stipulation that no fraud occurred in this case and reasonable equivalent value was given for the asset.
It was also asked by a judge if the 1,215 day rule have any relevance to the partition. The response was that it has relevance yet is also baring to the partition. A judge also questions why only the intent of the debtor is being evaluated
It was also asked by a judge if the 1,215 day rule have any relevance to the partition. The response was that it has relevance yet is also baring to the partition. A judge also questions why only the intent of the debtor is being evaluated