The plaintiff collections agency, as assignee of an alleged construction-material debt, moved for summary judgment for breach of contract and to set aside a property transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.
The court held there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including whether any post-September 2023 supply contract existed, whether the defendants ordered or received the disputed materials, and whether one defendant was party to any such agreement.
The evidentiary record raised significant credibility disputes, including unsigned delivery documentation, disputed invoices, and contested notice evidence, making fair adjudication on a paper record inappropriate under Rule 20.04 principles.
On the fraudulent conveyance claim under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, the court found the necessary intent findings could not be made summarily and that alleged badges of fraud required trial-level fact-finding.
The summary judgment motion was dismissed.
