to California to attend to her mother’s affairs. The debtor’s affairs are neglected in the process. Although the debtor neglects her own affairs, she intends months before to transfer funds from a stock to an annuity. Yet she waits until being sued and after consulting with a bankruptcy attorney to make the transfer. The transfer occurs one day prior to filing a bankruptcy petition. Upon filing bankruptcy, the hypothetical debtor lists the annuity as an exempt asset and discloses the untimely transfer. In fact, at the meeting of creditors she volunteers the information, including all records, names, and dates surrounding the transfer. Based on these facts, it is difficult to conclude that any court would find fraudulent intent. See In re Schwingler, 15 B.R. 291, 294-95 (W.D.Wis.1981) (<HOLDING>). Although part of her motivation when
holding that an emergency petition by an insurance commissioner in her capacity as liquidator of an insurance company that was whollyowned by the debtor holding company was not an exercise of police and regulatory powers because it sought to take control of the debtors assets to allow certain policyholders and creditors to gain a pecuniary advantage over other creditors of the debtors estate holding that the interest of the public  especially the debtor and creditors  could limit compensation to a debtors counsel holding that the debtors false statements about the location of assets of the estate were material to the proceedings holding that at least a part of the debtors motivation was to keep assets away from the creditors holding that a bankruptcy courts jurisdiction does not diminish post confirmation if the debtor pursuant to a liquidating plan seeks to commence litigation to collect the debtors assets for the benefit of its creditors