![]() In essence, they argued that the transfers of this property were designed to avoid collection of any potential judgment against the Estate following Musey’s death. Thereafter, plaintiffs sought the Court’s permission to assert claims under the UFTA with regard to the prior transfers of the Geissinger property. In 2013 the trial court entered default against the Estate and awarded plaintiffs approximately $1.8 million in damages on their Consumer Fraud Act claim. Haynes) sold the Geissinger property to the in-laws of Musey’s grandson for $110,000. The bankruptcy court record did not include any evidence that plaintiffs had argued the son played a role in the 2006 transfer of the Geissinger property or that they questioned the 2006 transfer Plaintiffs conceded they were “creditors” in the son’s bankruptcy proceeding. In 2011, which was more than 4 years from the 2006 transfer of the Geissinger property, Musey’s son filed for bankruptcy protection which resulted in a stay of the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Estate was probated in 2008, but the appellate record was void of any evidence that plaintiffs had contended the Geissinger property constituted an Estate asset. When Musey passed away plaintiffs named his Estate as a party to the suit. Plaintiffs filed suit in 2008 under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, among other causes of action, naming as defendants the developer who was the predecessor in title to the 2 properties, its owner, the real estate agency, Musey and his son. Both transactions were recorded with the local County Clerk. Then in 2012 the daughter sold the Geissinger property to the in-laws of Musey’s grandson – the 2012 transaction. Haynes”) for $1 and received a life estate – the 2006 transfer. ![]() Shortly thereafter, one of the sellers (Stephan Musey) sold an adjoining residential property (Geissinger property) to his daughter (Ms. ![]() The 2 homes that plaintiffs purchased were located on a portion of the contaminated property. In this particular case the plaintiffs alleged they were duped into purchasing 2 residential properties by the sellers’ failure to disclose substantial environmental contamination. The UFTA applies both to present and future creditors. The UFTA contains a 4-year statute of limitations period to file suit “after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, or, if later, within one year after the transfer or obligation was discovered.” N.J.S.A. Specifically, the UFTA prohibits any transfer intended “to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor.” N.J.S.A. The New Jersey Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”) provides creditors the opportunity to recover property that judgment debtors have attempted to put beyond their reach. New Jersey Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Marco Construction and Management, Inc., et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. In a published decision issued on January 12, 2016, the New Jersey Appellate Division confirmed that the same 4-year statute of limitations period for asserting fraudulent asset transfer claims applies in commercial transactions and tort claims regardless whether or not the creditor has obtained a judgment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |