alleging the transaction was a fraudulent conveyance. This argument at its essence is that Debtor engaged in a knowing and conscious fraudulent scheme. Critical to Debtor’s position is that the release of Clark Fork under Section 1102 was effective, thereby removing Plaintiffs as creditors of Clark Fork. However, if Plaintiffs can prove (as they have alleged) that the release was obtained through fraud, then the release would be ineffective. “If action is taken for a fraudulent purpose or to carry out a fraudulent purpose or to carry out a fraudulent scheme, the action is void and of no force or effect.” Richard A. Lord, Williston On Contracts Sec. 69.4 (4th Ed.2003). A release may be set aside if it was obtained fraudulently. Stanley v. Holms, 293 Mont. 343, 975 P.2d 1242 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Riggs et al. v. Gillespie, 241 F. 311 (4th
holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion holding that because plaintiff failed to advance evidence rebutting motion for summary judgment alongside a concession in their interrogatory response the district court did not err in granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that trial court impliedly ruled on motion for continuance by granting motion for summary judgment when appellant filed motion for continuance two days before summary judgment hearing holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment recognizing the invalidity of releases under fraudulent conditions but granting a motion for summary judgment because party had not set forth sufficient indicia of fraud