Court Opinion

ID: 9821274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:57:44.304047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:18.476789
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
[¶ 45] I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that exon*923erates Johnston Law Office for its role in the fraudulent transfer of the $20,400 from G & K Farms to Merlyn Grabanski. The mere fact that Johnston put the money in its trust account before it was transferred to Merlyn Grabanski should not exonerate it. As the district court held, “The transaction bears all the elements, of a fraudulent transfer, and is precisely the sort of insider transaction the statute is intended to prevent.” Johnston is not the equivalent of the innocent “mere conduit” like ¡a bank into which funds are deposited and then in good faith paid out when .a check or similar instrument is presented. The majority states, “A law firm is not free to put monies deposited in a client trust account to its own use.” But that does not authorize it to be an instrument of fraud. I would affirm the district court in holding Johnston liable for this as well.
[¶ 46] DALE V. SANDSTROM