Gorham State Bank v. Sellens

15 Citing cases

  1. In re Krause

    386 B.R. 785 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008)

    Thus, this Court concludes that Krause does have an equitable interest in the KCT property, subject either to attachment of validly filed and perfected federal tax liens, or to recovery by the Trustee, if it determines that Krause fraudulently conveyed property to the KCTs. 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793 (1989).See Bremen State Bank v. Loffler, 121 Kan. 6, 245 Pac. 742 (1926).

  2. In re Krause

    386 B.R. 785 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2008)

    Thus, this Court concludes that Krause does have an equitable interest in the KCT property, subject either to attachment of validly filed and perfected federal tax liens, or to recovery by the Trustee, if it determines that Krause fraudulently conveyed property to the KCTs. 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793 (1989). See Bremen State Bank v. Loffler, 121 Kan. 6, 245 P. 742 (1926).

  3. Dunlap v. Nielsen

    922 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    As a result of the unification of the Kansas court system, there are no longer "probate courts" per se in the state and all probate matters are handled in Kansas district court. See Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, , , 798 (1989).Mr. Wiemers published a "Notice to Creditors" regarding the May 24, 2016, Petition once a week for three weeks in the Kansas City Star beginning on June 2, 2016, and in the Miami County Republic beginning on June 8, 2016 [hereinafter "Notices"].

  4. In re Krause

    637 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2011)   Cited 26 times
    Discussing subtle difference between a trust as a nominee and trust as debtor's alter ego under reverse veil piercing

    Put differently, the transferor retains equitable ownership of the assets and those assets remain subject to attachment by his creditors. See Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793, 796 (1989) ("[A] debtor's property shall be liable for his debts, and he cannot avoid liability by a fraudulent transfer.") (internal quotation omitted). To determine whether a conveyance is fraudulent and so void as a matter of state law, Kansas law directs us to look for "six badges or indicia of fraud": "(1) a relationship between the grantor and grantee; (2) the grantee's knowledge of litigation against the grantor; (3) insolvency of the grantor; (4) a belief on the grantee's part that the contract was the grantor's last asset subject to a Kansas execution; (5) inadequacy of consideration; and (6) consummation of the transaction contrary to normal business procedures."

  5. Pilcher v. Direct Equity Lending

    189 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (D. Kan. 2002)   Cited 15 times
    Dismissing claim against assignees for lack of personal jurisdiction

    The need for clarification has been recognized by the Kansas Supreme Court. In Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 691-92, 772 P.2d 793 (1989) the court noted that the Kansas statute of frauds, which provided that fraudulent conveyances "shall be deemed utterly void and of no effect" in fact meant that "the conveyance is void only as to the equitable title and merely voidable as to the legal title." "A void act has no legal force or effect.

  6. Kimbrell v. Adia, S.A.

    929 F. Supp. 373 (D. Kan. 1996)   Cited 2 times

    Although in Kansas fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a party is not required to meet this standard at the summary judgment stage. Baumann v. Excel Indus., 17 Kan. App. 2d 807, 815, 845 P.2d 65, 71 (1993); Gotham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 691, 772 P.2d 793 (1989). The court reviews the evidence submitred in opposition to summary judgment using the usual preponderance of the evidence standard.

  7. Ramirez v. IBP, Inc.

    913 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Kan. 1995)   Cited 21 times

    In Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc., 17 Kan. App. 2d 807, 815, 845 P.2d 65, rev. denied, 252 Kan. 1091 (1993), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that "the application of a clear convincing evidence standard at the summary judgment stage is unique to libel cases because First Amendment rights are at issue." See Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 691, 772 P.2d 793 (1989) (a party resisting summary judgment on its fraud claim need not come forth with clear and convincing evidence). While state law determines the substantive evidentiary standard of proof for a state law claim at trial, it is federal law that determines where a court looks for the standard governing summary judgment procedures.

  8. All West Pet Supply v. Hill's Pet Products

    840 F. Supp. 1426 (D. Kan. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    The usual rules governing the ruling upon motions for summary judgment apply to actions based on fraud.Id., 676 F.2d at 106, cited with approval in Bishop v. Mid-America Auto Auction, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 565, 569 (D.Kan. 1991); see also Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793, 795 (1989); Baumann v. Excel Industries, Inc., 17 Kan. App. 2d 807, 845 P.2d 65, 72 (citing Gorham), rev. denied (1993). In reply, All West argues that notwithstanding Myers, state law standards for granting summary judgment may not be applied by a federal court, which is bound by the standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The court agrees.

  9. Printed Media Services v. Solna Web, Inc.

    838 F. Supp. 1453 (D. Kan. 1993)   Cited 1 times

    In addition, the court is not persuaded that Printed Media could have realized on any judgment from the assets in question even if the transfer were fraudulent, for the property transferred was already subject to a prior lien, the prior perfected security interest. See Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793, 796 (1989) (citing with approval Flaks v. De Berry, 53 Wyo. 203, 79 P.2d 825 (1938)) ("The right of the creditor to disregard the conveyance and attach the property presupposes that the title for the purpose of enabling the creditor to enforce his claim remains in the fraudulent grantor."). When PEC Acq. bought the assets of Solna Web (MO) (later Bocca), it paid in the form of a ten year non-interest bearing note.

  10. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Cruce

    783 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Kan. 1992)   Cited 8 times

    Kansas law would require the proof to be clear and convincing. Gorham State Bank v. Sellens, 244 Kan. 688, 772 P.2d 793, 795 (1989). Further, the Kansas Supreme Court has set forth the six badges or indicia of fraud to be considered in view of the pertinent facts of each case.