DINO SPADACCINI v. LISA MARIN MAIN (2013)

Plaintiff Dino Spadaccini and defendant Kevin H. Main practiced law as Spadaccini Main from April 2002 through July 2010.   Defendant Kevin H. Main (Main) and his wife, defendant Lisa Marin Main (Marin Main), purchased real property in Pennington in 2002.   The July 2010 transfer of this property from Main and Marin Main, jointly, to Marin Main alone, forms the basis for Spadaccini's filing of the complaint in this matter for, among other things, relief based on the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), N.J.S.A. 25:2–20 to –34.   In light of the resolution of all aspects of defendants' marital relationship in a divorce action, the trial judge in this matter granted summary judgment in favor of Marin Main.

Plaintiff appeals, arguing:

I.  THE LAW DIVISION ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND FAVORABLE INFERENCES IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF IN THE PRESENCE OF GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT.

II. THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY FAILING TO APPLY THE ADVERSE INFERENCES OF THE UFTA.

III. THE COURT BELOW FAILED TO MAKE THE REQUISITE FINDINGS OF FACT.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(E).   We add only the following brief comments.

The UFTA action brought by plaintiff against Main and Marin Main has its genesis in malpractice liabilities incurred by Spadaccini Main that resulted from an agreement the law firm had with another law firm regarding the referral of workers' compensation and personal injury claims.   In this action, plaintiff asserted that Main avoided his responsibility for his share of the firm's losses by transferring his interest in the property owned by Main and his wife but conveyed, in the interim, to Marin Main alone.

The trial judge granted Marin Main's summary judgment motion by way of a cursory oral decision.   We discern from the judge's ruling, however, that he recognized that even if the 2010 transfer of the property to Marin Main constituted a UFTA violation, that plaintiff's remedy was to be found in the context of the matrimonial action.   The record reveals that defendants' marital settlement agreement called for the equal division of property between them, and Main's fifty percent share of the proceeds obtained when the property was sold was placed in escrow.   In addition, the Family Part judge prohibited distribution of the escrow except on notice to plaintiff.

Ultimately, the trial court entered an order on June 21, 2012, based upon the Family Part's disposition of the remaining matrimonial issues, that distributed the escrow funds, including a payment to plaintiff of $24,235.   Plaintiff does not complain of the distribution of the escrow pursuant to this order, only the earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of Marin Main.¹

We agree with what is the essence of the trial judge's disposition of the summary judgment motion.   That is, we discern from the judge's decision that he held that what may have been fraudulently conveyed – Main's share of the proceeds resulting from the sale of the property – was restored to Main and, in the context of the divorce action, was placed in escrow and subjected to plaintiff's claim for satisfaction of its claims against Main. Plaintiff was entitled to no greater relief than that.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Plaintiff's notice of appeal does not identify the June 21, 2012 order as one as to which plaintiff seeks our review..  FN1. Plaintiff's notice of appeal does not identify the June 21, 2012 order as one as to which plaintiff seeks our review.

PER CURIAM