Legal Opinion
Intili v. DiGiorgio
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
Decided January 27, 1997PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MARGOLIS, P.J. CH.
The issue before this Court is whether the plaintiffs claims under N.J.S.A. 25:2-25 of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA”), are time barred.1
*655The undisputed facts are as follows: On May 14, 1990, the plaintiff, Rose Intili, tiled a complaint in the Superior Court Law Division, Essex County against Anthony and Josephine DiGiorgio for money due on a note. On July 16, 1990, final judgment by default was entered because defendants failed to file a timely answer or otherwise move. On November 19, 1991, Anthony DiGiorgio conveyed his one-half interest in real property…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Kimmelman v. Henkels & McCoy, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Schierstead v. City of BrigantineSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Roig v. KelseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1994
- White v. Violent Crimes Compensation BoardSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1978
- Wollen v. Borough of Fort LeeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1958
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. ZudkewichSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2001
- G-I Holdings, Inc. v. Those Parties Listed on Exhibit a (In Re G-I Holdings, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · 2004
- Levy v. Markal Sales Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2000
- First Union National Bank v. Gibbons (In Re Princeton-New York Investors, Inc.)District Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Schnidt v. HSC, Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2014
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.