In the Utermehle v. Norment case of 1904, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a will and testament. The testator had left his estate to his wife for her lifetime use, after which it was to be divided among their children. However, one child predeceased the mother without any issue or descendants leaving only two surviving siblings at the time of their mother's death. The question before the court was whether this deceased sibling’s share should go to his surviving siblings or revert back to other relatives as per intestacy laws (laws that determine how property is distributed when someone dies without a valid will). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of distributing this portion equally amongst remaining siblings rather than reverting it back under intestacy rules because they believed that such an interpretation would best align with what most likely were intentions of original testator.

The dissenting opinion in the Utermehle v. Norment case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply established legal principles regarding fraudulent conveyances. The dissent took issue with the majority's interpretation of evidence, arguing that there were clear indications of fraud which should have invalidated certain property transfers under scrutiny in this case. They believed that these transactions were designed to defraud creditors by placing assets beyond their reach, a violation of both statutory law and common law principles against fraudulent conveyance. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s conclusion about Mrs.Utermehle’s mental capacity at the time she made those transfers; they contended she was not mentally competent enough to understand her actions or their implications fully.