Szkrybalo v. Szkrybalo

Michigan Supreme Court

Szkrybalo v. Szkrybalo

729 N.W.2d 233, 477 Mich. 1086

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 11, 2007

Docket132759

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 729 N.W.2d 233 (Szkrybalo v. Szkrybalo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Szkrybalo v. Szkrybalo, 729 N.W.2d 233, 477 Mich. 1086 (Mich. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Summary Dispositions April 11, 2007.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the only evidence of a "badge of fraud" in this case under MCL 566.34(2) was that the defendant James Szkrybalo transferred assets to Andrea Szkrybalo, an "insider" under MCL566.31(g)(i)(A), which assets Andrea subsequently utilized to make mortgage payments on a home titled in her name. The plaintiff presented evidence of other "badges of fraud" including: James was sued before he made the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(d); the transfers occurred shortly after James incurred a substantial debt, MCL 566.34(2)(j); James did not receive a reasonably equivalent value for the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(h); McCaslin v Schouten, 294 Mich 180 (1940); and James allegedly attempted to conceal the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(c) and (g). See Regan v Carrigan,194 Mich App 35, 39 (1992) ("[C]ourts will closely *Page 1087 scrutinize transactions between a husband and wife when creditors are involved."). We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether, in light of this evidence, the plaintiffs established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants actually intended to hinder, delay, or defraud the plaintiffs under MCL 566.34. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Summary Dispositions April 11, 2007.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals judgment holding that the only evidence of a "badge of fraud" in this case under MCL 566.34(2) was that the defendant James Szkrybalo transferred assets to Andrea Szkrybalo, an "insider" under MCL566.31(g)(i)(A), which assets Andrea subsequently utilized to make mortgage payments on a home titled in her name. The plaintiff presented evidence of other "badges of fraud" including: James was sued before he made the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(d); the transfers occurred shortly after James incurred a substantial debt, MCL 566.34(2)(j); James did not receive a reasonably equivalent value for the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(h); McCaslin v Schouten, 294 Mich 180 (1940); and James allegedly attempted to conceal the transfers, MCL566.34(2)(c) and (g). See Regan v Carrigan,194 Mich App 35, 39 (1992) ("[C]ourts will closely *Page 1087 scrutinize transactions between a husband and wife when creditors are involved."). We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether, in light of this evidence, the plaintiffs established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants actually intended to hinder, delay, or defraud the plaintiffs under MCL 566.34. In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 N.W.2d 233, 477 Mich. 1086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/szkrybalo-v-szkrybalo-mich-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack