Legal Opinion

Heinig v. Hudman

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided May 27, 1993No. 1 CA-CV 90-207PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

LANKFORD, Judge.

Plaintiff Sandra K. Heinig appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendants George Hudman and Cheryl Fisher Hudman. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

The parties raise numerous issues which we summarize as follows:

1. Does the doctrine of res judicata bar Heinig’s action?

2. Does Heinig have a fraudulent conveyance claim against the Hudmans’ marital community when she is a judgment creditor only of Mr. Hudman individually?

On review of summary judgment, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. United Bank of Arizona v. AllynCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  2. U.S. Insulation, Inc. v. Hilro Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  3. Day v. Estate of WiswallArizona Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Collier v. CollierArizona Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Baldwin v. BaldwinArizona Supreme Court · 1937

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1997
  2. Airfreight Express Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  3. Paduano v. Express Scripts, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2014
  4. Smith v. PinnamaneniCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  5. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. GreeneCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API