CHAPTER 7 - ARTICLE (3) - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333

 CHAPTER 7 - ARTICLE (3)

sTANYA L. KAUFFMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JALAL M. SHABAZZ, Defendant-

Appellant.

No. A-2114-

18T1. Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued December 10, 2019.
​
Decided January 3, 2020.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Burlington County, Docket No. FM-03-1428-12.

Louis Gerard Guzzo argued the cause for appellant.

Luretha M. Stribling argued the cause for respondent.

Before Judges Accurso and Gilson.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Jalal Shabazz appeals from a post-judgment order enforcing a provision of the parties' marital settlement agreement in which they agreed to be "equally responsible" for an American Express account having an approximate balance of $7400 at the time of their divorce in 2012. The December 14, 2018 order directed defendant to pay plaintiff Tanya Kauffman $10,123.36 for his fifty-percent share of the balance as of the time of the order and awarded her $3000 in attorney's fees.

(201)646-3333 | LAWER IN NEW JERSEY | NJ | PATERSON - HAWTHORNE - HALEDON - TOTOWA - WANAQUE - WAYNE - YouTube

My name is Pedro Ramos and I'm here to testify on behalf of my attorney Rafael Gomez who is a very highly qualified professional and represents me in legal cases that I've had before the court and I'd like to recommend very highly as a very professional and dedicated lawyer.

Defendant contends the amount awarded exceeded what plaintiff requested in her notice of motion; the order was based on the court's mistaken belief that plaintiff filed an objection to the discharge of the debt in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy; that enforcement of the marital settlement agreement was barred by laches; and that the trial court did not have adequate information "to calculate that plaintiff/respondent actually paid $10,126.36." Our review of the record convinces us that none of those arguments, only the last of which he raised to the trial court, is of sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only the following.

Although defendant contends the amount awarded exceeded what plaintiff "requested in her notice of motion," the notice of motion included in his appendix mentions no amount but asks only that defendant be compelled "to immediately make payments as required by the Property Settlement Agreement attached to the Judgment of Divorce." We thus reject his first argument as baseless.

His second argument, that the trial court based its decision on the mistaken belief that plaintiff filed an objection to the discharge of this claim, is equally unavailing. Because 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) provides that a Chapter 7 discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727, does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt to a former spouse incurred in the course of a divorce or in connection with a separation agreement or divorce decree, whether the judge was mistaken as to whether plaintiff filed an objection to the discharge is of no moment. Defendant's obligation to pay half the American Express bill was not discharged in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy as a matter of law, with no action necessary by plaintiff to protect the claim.

The only argument defendant offers in support of his claim of laches is an old case in which the chancellor determined he could infer from the wife's failure to have pursued support arrearages for six years, making the application only after her ex-husband's death, that the two had "made some arrangement between themselves with respect to support." Duffy v. Duffy, 19 N.J. Misc. 332, 340 (Ch. 1941). Here, however, defendant claims no such arrangement, and the record reflects that plaintiff pursued defendant for contribution to the American Express bill for some time before filing her motion to enforce the agreement. There is, accordingly, no support for defendant's third argument that enforcement of the marital settlement agreement is barred by laches.

Finally, we reject defendant's fourth argument that plaintiff "failed to provide any documentation evidencing that she actually paid any interest" for the period between entry of the divorce judgment in 2012 and the American Express statement from 2018, which the trial court rejected.

(201)646-3333 | Bankrupcy Lawyer in New Jersey | NJ | Bergen County , Hudson County, Hackensack .. - YouTube

Hi my name is Abel Guzman. Rafael Gomez is representing me today, he's a great, he's a great lawyer, he's doing all the best things you could do for me and I recommend them to anybody. Thanks

Defendant has included in his appendix a copy of a certification plaintiff submitted in support of her motion in which plaintiff averred that her "attorney provided all of the outstanding AMEX bills" in her pre-hearing exchange pursuant to the court's discovery order. That certification references several exhibits, none of which were attached to the document.

Plaintiff has included in her own appendix certain American Express statements defendant did not provide us. She further asserts in her brief that the court calculated the amount owed "by reviewing American Express bills which were noted in [plaintiff's] certification to be exhibits G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O." Those exhibits are not included in defendant's appendix and he did not file a reply brief challenging the accuracy of plaintiff's representations regarding the state of the record before the trial court.

Defendant's failure to supply us with all the documents on which the trial court relied to calculate his share of the American Express account, including interest and fees imposed after entry of the divorce judgment, leaves us unable to agree with his argument that those documents were inadequate to support the court's conclusion. See Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J. Super. 163, 177 (App. Div. 2002); R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I).

Affirmed.

BANKRUPTCY ARTICLE 2 - ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK NJ (201) 646-3333

 

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING,

 INC., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MISOOK KIM, Defendant-Appellant,

 and

KI C. KIM, Defendant.

No. A-3693-13T1. Superior Court of

 New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted March 24, 2015.
​
Decided April 1, 2015.

Law Offices of Jae Y. Kim, L.L.C., attorneys for appellant (Raymond Marelic, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Kim, on the brief).
Fleischer, Fleischer & Suglia, attorneys for respondent (Allison L. Domowitch, on the brief).
Before Judges Fasciale and Hoffman.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.
Defendant Misook Kim appeals from a March 7, 2014 order denying her motion to vacate an order granting summary judgment to plaintiff. We affirm.

Plaintiff obtained a judgment against Hanna Kim Corporation ("Hanna"). Hanna allegedly attempted to defraud and evade its creditors by making post-judgment transfers to defendant and co-defendant Ki C. Kim, who is defendant's husband and Hanna's president. Plaintiff essentially maintained in this action that Hanna was a shell corporation created to conceal defendant's ​personal transactions.

Plaintiff filed its complaint demanding damages under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (the "Act"), N.J.S.A. 25:2-20 to -34. Plaintiff attempted to pierce Hanna's corporate veil seeking to collect the money that Hanna allegedly transferred fraudulently. Co-defendant successfully sought protection from plaintiff's claim by filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and obtaining a discharge.[1] Defendant did not seek similar protection.

(201)646-3333 | BANKRUCY LAWYER IN HUDSON COUNTY | NJ | JERSEY CITY - HOBOKEN - BAYONNE - WEEHAWKEN - YouTube

My name is Sarah Bermudez, I'm here at the office of Rafael Gomez and he's had a case for my family and I recommend him, he'll do a great job for you.

Plaintiff pursued its claim solely against defendant under the Act. Plaintiff and defendant both filed motions for summary judgment. In January 2014, the court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, and denied defendant's motion.

Defendant sought to vacate summary judgment pursuant to Rule 4:50-1(d). She argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because co-defendant had filed for bankruptcy. Defendant conceded, however, that she did not file a petition for bankruptcy. Plaintiff contended that its summary judgment against defendant was independent from anything that co-defendant had done leading to his filing of the Chapter 7 petition. Plaintiff argued that it obtained judgment against defendant based on fraudulent transfers that Hanna had made directly to defendant, unrelated to any transfers that co-defendant may have made, or any transfers that Hanna may have made to co-defendant.

The judge denied defendant's motion to vacate plaintiff's summary judgment, entered the order under review, and then denied defendant's motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, defendant contends that co-defendant's Chapter 7 petition prevents plaintiff from pursuing its claim against her under the Act. As a result, defendant repeats her Rule 4:50-1(d) argument that the judge erred by not vacating plaintiff's summary judgment because the court arguably lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

After reviewing the record and the briefs, we conclude that defendant's argument is without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief remarks.

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard under Rule 4:46-2(c) that governed the trial court. Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558, 564 (2012). Here, there are no genuine issues of material fact. Because the judge resolved legal questions, we review her conclusions on issues of law de novo. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
​
"The purpose of the [Act] is to prevent a debtor from placing his or her property beyond a creditor's reach." Gilchinsky v. Nat'l Westminster Bank N.J., 159 N.J. 463, 475 (1999). The Act defines "transfer" as "every mode, direct or indirect, absolute or conditional, voluntary or involuntary, of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, and includes payment of money, release, lease, and creation of a lien or other encumbrance." N.J.S.A. 25:2-22. A transfer of assets may be fraudulent under the Act if the transaction was completed (1) with the actual intent to defraud the creditor, or (2) through constructive fraud, where the debtor had no actual intent to commit fraud. State Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Caldeira, 171 N.J. 404, 409 (2002).

(201)646-3333 | SPECIALIST BANKRUPCY ATORNEY | New Jersey, New York, Newark, Hackensack, Paterson .. - YouTube

Hi guys my name is Vanessa Reynoso I hired mr. Gomez as one of my lawyer for me, to help me out and I could have been more happier with his help so I recommend you guys if you guys need any help to hire him, because he'll get you out of a bad situation.

Plaintiff's damages against defendant under the Act pertain to fraudulent transfers that Hanna made to defendant. Here, Hanna attempted to place its assets beyond plaintiff's reach by making fraudulent transfers to defendant. This violates the underlying policy of the Act, which is to prevent debtors from deliberately defrauding creditors "by removing [their] property from the jaws of execution." Gilchinsky, supra, 159 N.J. at 475 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover, plaintiff's claims against defendant are separate from its discharged claims against co-defendant. Plaintiff did not seek from defendant damages related to any transfer of money that co-defendant may have made to defendant in anticipation of co-defendant's Chapter 7 petition filing. In other words, plaintiff did not attempt to recover its damages from co-defendant's bankruptcy estate or from any transfer that co-defendant may have made. Rather, plaintiff premised its claims against defendant pursuant to the Act and successfully pierced Hanna's corporate veil.

Although defendant did not file a petition for bankruptcy, she made numerous applications seeking to stay plaintiff's collection efforts against her. The judge correctly denied those efforts because defendant was not a bankruptcy debtor entitled to an automatic stay. Defendant therefore never availed herself of protection under the bankruptcy code and her suggestion that the court somehow lacked subject matter jurisdiction is without merit.

As a result, we reject defendant's contention that there is a basis for relief under Rule 4:50-1(d).
​
Affirmed.
[1] Co-defendant is not involved in this appeal.

CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE - ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK NJ (201) 646-3333

CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE 

156 A.3d 1061 (2017)
228 N.J. 311 MOTORWORLD, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
William BENKENDORF, Gudrun Benkendorf, Benks Land Services,
​ Inc., Defendants.
Catherine E. Youngman, Chapter 7 Trustee for Carole Salkind,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
William Benkendorf, Gudrun Benkendorf, Benks Land Services,
Inc., Defendants-Respondents.
No. A-64 September Term, 2015, No. 077009. Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued November 30, 2016.
Decided March 30, 2017.

On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Andrew J. Karas argued the cause for appellant (Fox Rothschild and Forman Holt & Eliades attorneys); Mr. Karas and Joseph M. Cerra, on the briefs).

Diana C. Manning argued the cause for respondents (Bressler, Amery & Ross, attorneys; Ms. Manning and Benjamin J. DiLorenzo, on the brief).

JUSTICE PATTERSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), N.J.S.A. 25:2-20 to -34, provides that a transfer made by a debtor is constructively fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the transfer was made, if the debtor made the transfer without receiving "reasonably equivalent value" in exchange for the transfer and the debtor was insolvent at that time or became insolvent as a result of the transfer. N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a). In order to constitute "reasonably equivalent value" for purposes of the UFTA, the "value" must be received by and for the benefit of the debtor-transferor, not for the benefit of a different person or entity. Ibid.; Nat'l Westminster Bank NJ v. Anders Eng'g, Inc., 289 N.J.Super. 602, 605, 674 A.2d 638 (App. Div. 1996); Flood v. Caro Corp., 272 N.J.Super. 398, 406-07, 640 A.2d 306 (App. Div. 1994).

In this appeal, a bankruptcy trustee and a corporation owned by the bankrupt debtor challenge the corporation's release of a debt, on the ground that the release constituted a constructively fraudulent transfer under the UFTA. The debt that was released had previously been owed to the corporation by a landscaping business that was a creditor of two other corporations owned by the same shareholder. The other corporations' debts to the landscaping business were extinguished in exchange for the release.

The trial court concluded that the transfer was constructively fraudulent under N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a) because the corporation relinquished its sole asset without receiving "reasonably equivalent value" in return. An Appellate Division panel reversed that determination. The panel held that the transfer benefited the debtor corporation's sole shareholder because it extinguished the debts of two other corporations that she owned. The Appellate Division determined that the transfer was therefore made for "reasonably equivalent value" and that it was not constructively fraudulent under N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a).
​
We hold that the Appellate Division panel improperly ignored the distinction between the corporation that was the "debtor" for purposes of N.J.S.A. 25:2-27(a) and its shareholder, as well as the distinction between the debtor corporation and the other corporate entities that the shareholder owned. We conclude that the evidence fully supports the trial court's determination 1065*1065 that the corporation did not receive "reasonably equivalent value" in exchange for the disputed transfer. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Division's judgment and remand to the panel for its consideration of issues that it did not reach.

(201)646-3333| BANKRUPTC LAWYER IN NJ | BERGEN COUNTY - PASSAIC COUNTY - ESSEX COUNTY -HUDSON COUNTY - YouTube

My name is Nelson Rosado and my lawyer Rafael Gomez represented me today in court and saved my license. I was basically 19 points and he reduced it to 4 points so I thank you very much and I recommend you guys to get him as your lawyer. Thanks

I.
We summarize the facts based upon the trial record.

For several decades, Morton Salkind operated a range of businesses, primarily focused on real estate development. In 1988, he arranged for his wife, Carole Salkind, to become the sole shareholder of nineteen closely held corporations. Despite the change of ownership, Morton Salkind continued to manage the companies. This appeal involves three of those entities: plaintiff Motorworld, Inc. (Motorworld), established to explore the prospect of stock car racing at the Meadowlands Sports Complex; Fox Development, Inc. (Fox), a development company that built condominiums in Rockaway Township; and Giant Associates, Inc. (Giant), a development company engaged in a construction project at the Rockaway Town Hall.

Defendant William Benkendorf (Benkendorf) was the principal owner of defendant Benks Land Services, Inc. (Benks), which provided commercial landscaping, excavation, and snow removal services. In 2004, Morton Salkind contacted Benkendorf, whom he had known for many years, and retained Benks to provide landscaping services to some of the companies owned by Carole Salkind. Over a period of several years, Benks provided landscaping services to Fox in connection with its residential development project in Rockaway and to Giant as part of its Rockaway Town Hall project. It is undisputed that neither Benks nor Benkendorf provided landscaping services to Motorworld.

Benkendorf testified, and Morton Salkind agreed, that Benks was paid $5,000,000 for work performed on the Fox development project alone, and that Fox and Giant accumulated a debt to Benks in the amount of more than $1,000,000 in unpaid bills for landscaping and construction services.

In 2004, Benkendorf needed money immediately to resolve a federal payroll tax issue. Citing Fox's outstanding bills, Benkendorf approached Morton Salkind and asked for a loan. Salkind agreed to arrange a loan. According to Salkind, he decided to designate Motorworld as the lender in the transaction because the company was "clean" and had no liabilities.

Following Morton's instructions, Carole Salkind transferred $499,000 from her personal checking account into Motorworld's bank account. Although the record contains no note or other document memorializing the transaction between Carole Salkind and Motorworld, Motorworld's tax return characterized that transaction as a "loan" from Carole Salkind to Motorworld.

Benkendorf and his wife, defendant Gudrun Benkendorf, executed a note dated December 17, 2004 (Note). The Note, prepared by Morton Salkind's counsel at his direction, stated that the Benkendorfs would pay the principal amount of $600,000 by September 16, 2005, and would be assessed a ten percent penalty and twenty-four percent interest in the event of a default. The Note recited that the money was being loaned as an "accommodation" to the Benkendorfs so that they could "satisfy an IRS obligation [that was] imminently due." The Benkendorfs agreed not to "seek a set off, reduction or use of this Note to offset any money" owed to them or their companies by Fox, any other company in which Carole Salkind was a principal stockholder, "or any family members of Carole Salkind."

1066*1066 Benkendorf's company, Benks, guaranteed the Note. The obligation was secured by construction equipment and vehicles owned by Benks and other companies owned by the Benkendorfs. The same day, Motorworld issued a check to the Benkendorfs for $500,000 — $100,000 less than the principal amount set forth in the Note.

After he and his wife failed to pay the principal amount by the date set forth in the Note, Benkendorf asked Morton Salkind to "offset" the "late fees" owed to Motorworld "by monies owed to Benks by Giant Corp." Salkind declined Benkendorf's request for a setoff. Instead, the parties executed a First Amendment to the Note on September 29, 2005, providing for a payment schedule and additional penalties and interest in the event of a further default.

Although the record suggests that the Benkendorfs made some payments toward their loan obligation, it is undisputed that they failed to repay the principal by the extended date. On October 11, 2006, the parties executed a Second Amendment to the Note, extending the deadline for repayment to January 1, 2007, and setting a payment schedule for the interest due on the loan. The Benkendorfs again failed to repay the loan by the extended date and entered into a Third Amendment to the Note on April 23, 2008. The Third Amendment extended the due date until March 1, 2009, and imposed substantial interest and late charges on the Benkendorfs.

In light of his escalating obligations, Benkendorf renewed his urgent request that Morton Salkind "clean this up" by treating the amount due on the Note as a setoff of the more than $1,000,000 owed to Benks by Carole Salkind's companies, Fox and Giant, for landscaping work. Benkendorf testified that by August 2008, he was angry at Morton Salkind for declining to enter into a setoff arrangement. Salkind, then awaiting sentencing on a federal tax evasion charge, wished to preserve a business relationship that he "cherished" and agreed to a setoff arrangement. He insisted, however, on what Benkendorf characterized as an agreement to "split it down the middle": Motorworld, no longer an active company, would cancel the Note — eliminating Benkendorf's obligation to pay the $600,000 in principal, as well as interest and penalties — and Benks and Benkendorf would forgo their right to collect from Fox and Giant more than $1,000,000 in unpaid bills for landscaping and related services. To Salkind, the agreement constituted "a two for one deal ... two to one in my favor," that he did not consider "a big deal." To Benkendorf, the terms of the arrangement were acceptable, notwithstanding his agreement to forgo repayment of the $1,000,000 owed, because he "never had much luck pursuing any debts. It was just a waste of time."

In accordance with that agreement, Motorworld and defendants effected the transfer at the center of this case. On August 8, 2008, Motorworld executed a Release that provided:

This shall serve to confirm that the $600,000.00 Promissory Note executed on December 17, 2004 in favor of Motorworld, Inc.; which Promissory Note was amended three times, is due March 1, 2009.

This shall further serve to confirm that in payment of the Promissory Note, Benks Land Services, owned by William C. Benkendorf, has performed site work services which were provided with regard to the Rockaway Town Hall project, and has provided various construction and maintenance services, on Buildings 15 & 16.

Based upon all of the above services, the Note has been satisfied and is at this point Paid in Full.

1067*1067 The Release was signed by Morton Salkind as Motorworld's Vice President. As confirmed by the attorney who prepared the Release at Salkind's direction, Motorworld had never been involved in the construction projects referenced in the Release.[1]

In March 2009, Morton Salkind filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. In his petition, he listed no corporate entities as assets. In June 2009, Carole Salkind filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, listing Fox, Giant, and Motorworld among her corporate assets. In her petition, she stated that the value of her interest in Motorworld was "unknown." Consistent with the terms of the Release, Carole Salkind did not list the Benkendorfs' debt to Motorworld as an asset of that company.

The United States Bankruptcy Court appointed Catherine E. Youngman (Trustee) to serve as the trustee of both bankruptcy estates. The Trustee's investigation of Carole Salkind's assets revealed that Motorworld conducted no business, that its $500,000 debt to Carole Salkind was its sole liability, and that it had a single asset: the Benkendorfs' $600,000 debt to Motorworld, guaranteed by Benks, as memorialized in the December 17, 2004 Note. The Trustee's determination gave rise to this litigation.

(201)646-3333 | ATTORNY IN NEW JERSEY | NJ | CLIFTON - PASSAIC - BLOOMINGDALE - HASKELL - HEWITT - YouTube