Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. JOSEPH J. CALDEIRA, SR., et al. -- rank: 1000

... not time-barred. If the four-year limitations period of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 applies, then the action is time-barred, unless the DEP ... by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. In addition, U.S.A. Waste sought a dismissal of ... the motion judge dismissed the complaint as time-barred under N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 against U.S.A. Waste and Caldeira, Jr. with respect ... POINT I         THE FOUR YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PROVIDED BY N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 IS APPLICABLE TO ACTIONS INSTITUTED BY THE STATE OR ANY ... of limitations applies to the DEP's Fraudulent Transfer action, N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] cause of action with ... 49.     In contrast, the Fraudulent Transfer Act's limitations provision, N.J.S.A. 25:2-31, "expressly and specifically" provides a four-year limitations provision ...

docket:	A2507-99
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2001-03-16
status:	published
citation:	338 N.J. Super. 203
Document Size:	66881

2 VICTOR ROSARIO v. MARCO CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT INC. -- rank: 981

... of limitations (SOL) or one-year tolling period contained in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a). Plaintiffs, who have characterized the underlying environmental dispute as ... of the alleged fraudulent transfer. Applying the plain text of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31, we hold that the commencement of the SOL for claims ... 7 The judge concluded the four-year SOL contained in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a) barred plaintiffs from bringing a claim under the Act ... also addressed whether the one-year tolling period contained in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a) saved plaintiffs' claim as to the 2006 transfer. He ... supra , 183 N.J. at 492). The plain language of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a) clearly provides that the triggering date for calculating the ... after the transfer or obligation was discovered by the claimant[.] [ N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a) (emphasis added).] The Act addresses fraudulent transfers, not ...

docket:	a1562-14
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-01-12
status:	published
citation:	443 N.J.Super. 345 128 A.3d 1131
Document Size:	47629

3 RHONDA DEL MASTRO v. PHILIP B. GRIMADO -- rank: 883

... of a claim and thus we turn to those requirements. N.J.S.A. 25:2-31, titled "Extinguishment of cause of action," provides in relevant part ... 1. 7 We note the legislative history mistakenly refers to N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 as a "statute of limitations." It is not unusual to ... lacking merit, plaintiff's contention the trial judge erroneously interpreted N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 to provide "a claimant who becomes aware of a fraudulent ... 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The judge correctly stated N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 does not bar a claimant's action so long as ...

docket:	a1433-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2013-09-05
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	73907

4 NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION v. OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION -- rank: 867

... of this issue is warranted. Effective November 18, 2002, 4 N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 provides: A cause of action with respect to a fraudulent ... L. 2002, c. 100, § 1).] Prior to this date, N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a) stated: 'Under subsection a. of [ N.J.S.A ... She concluded 'any retroactive application of the [2002] amendment to N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 should be eschewed.' 5 The judge incorporated this decision into ... the claims are barred by the statute of repose in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. In this appeal, intervenor does not challenge the merits of ...

docket:	a2036-17
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-12-27
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	103693

5 COURT A-0 NATIONWIDE REGISTRY & SECURITY, LTD v. MURAD MELHEM AND NAJAH MELHEM - -- rank: 864

... elapsed since the deed's execution, recovery was extinguished under N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 for being untimely. 3 Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing the ... after the transfer or obligation was discovered by the claimant . . . . [ N.J.S.A. 25:2-31.] We need not determine whether the transfer of the Brigantine ... not when examining whether the claim is extinguished pursuant to N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. Indeed, the section requiring recordation clearly states the conditions apply ... be filed "within four years after the transfer was made." N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 (emphasis added). It is antithetical to conclude the same term ...

docket:	a2018-14
court:	New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2016-11-11
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	28268

6 State of NJDEP v. Caldeira, et al. -- rank: 792

... of limitations and that the one-year tolling provision of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 was not applicable because the claim was brought more than ... actions commenced by the State . . ..” Two other relevant limitations are N.J.S.A. 25:2-31, which provides a four-year limit for actions concerning fraudulent ... years next after the cause of action shall have accrued. [ N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 provides a four-year statute of limitations for actions concerning ... receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange” in violation of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 with respect to the transfer of ownership in Caldeira Brothers ...

docket:	a-13-01
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2002-04-08
status:
citation:	171 N.J. 404
Document Size:	45374

7 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/supreme/a3377-14.opn.html -- rank: 783

... an outdated version of the statute of limitations found in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a). Second, it contends that the court erred in applying ... limitations for all of those claims are set forth in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. That statute of limitations provides that claims under N.J ... after the transfer or obligation was discovered by the claimant[.]" N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a). Claims under N.J.S.A. 25:2-25 ... after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred[.]" N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(b). Finally, claims under N.J.S.A. 25:2 ... after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred." N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(c). Here, the undisputed facts establish that Joemax knew of ... that the trial court relied on an outdated version of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a). The question here is not whether or when ...

docket:
court:	NJ Superior Court Law/Chancery Division
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	26919

8 GS PARTNERS, L.L.C. v. CAROL VENUTO -- rank: 738

... that those counts were barred by a statute of repose, N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on the ... counts on the ground that they were time-barred by N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. The court declined to dismiss the other two counts of ... argues the Chancery Division incorrectly dismissed the three UFTA counts. N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 provides in pertinent part that "[a] cause of action . . . under ... in such circumstances does not violate the legislative intent of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. Our understanding of the law in this regard is also ...

docket:	a4176-12
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2014-04-28
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	31784

9 J.P v. J.N -- rank: 735

... one year after the transfer . . . was discovered by the claimant.' N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(a). A-2616-21 13 all [i]n it. So ... a fraudulent conveyance, plaintiff's UFTA claim was untimely under N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. Next, we are persuaded Judge Gardner correctly found plaintiff failed ...

docket:	a2616-21
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2024-01-17
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	45067

10 SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich -- rank: 720

... 9 essentially verbatim. L. 1988, c. 74, § 1 (codified at N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 (emphasis added).]     SASCO contends that Zudkewich transferred the property with ... Jersey court has interpreted the one-year tolling provision of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 until this case. There is a paucity of out-of ...

docket:	a-94-99
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2001-03-01
status:
citation:	166 N.J. 579
Document Size:	51576

11 PASSAIC ARMS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC v. FELBEE REALTY, LP -- rank: 710

... we have said are clearly statutes of repose, such as N.J.S.A. 25:2- - 31, for extinguishment of a claim for relief under the Uniform ...

docket:	a1377-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-12-29
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	64230

12 MOTORWORLD, INC v. WILLIAM BENKENDORF -- rank: 625

... conveyance. II We also reject Benks' statute of limitations argument. N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(b) requires that fraudulent conveyance claims be commenced no later ... timeliness of the action when viewed solely in light of N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(b), Benks argues the United States Bankruptcy Code requires a ... here is the four-year time-bar set forth in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(b). And, as noted earlier, the action filed by the ...

docket:	a4350-13
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	0000-00-00
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	24109

13 JOHN GUIDO v. BARBARA A. SPINA -- rank: 619

... filed their complaint beyond the statute of limitations established by N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. We reverse. The Act allows causes of action for fraudulent ... avoid payment. The applicable statute of limitations is contained in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31, which states in relevant part: Extinguishment of cause of action ...

docket:	a3215-08
court:	superior court appellate division
decided:	2010-05-14
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	34988

14 RAYMOND LUBERTAZZA v. CHRISTOPHER W. HLIBOKI, ESQ. -- rank: 540

... because it was done to avoid creditors. We note that N.J.S.A. 25:2-31. Even if it were timely, the question arises as to ...

docket:	a5195-06
court:	njappellate
decided:	2008-01-28
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	45921

15 TITAN MANAGEMENT, L.P. v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al. -- rank: 496

... that the applicable statute of limitations was four years under N.J.S.A. 25:2-31 and that the discovery rule would not apply. The complaint ...

docket:	A2047-05
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2006-12-20
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	48124