BANCO POPULAR NORTH AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND CROSS-RESPONDENT, v. SURESH GANDI A/K/A SURESH GANDHI, MADHU S. GANDI A/K/A MADHU S. GANDHI, DEFENDANTS, AND RICHARD P. FREEDMAN, ESQ., ANGELINI, VINIAR & FREEDMAN, A NEW JERSEY GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, MICHAEL A. ANGELINI, ESQ., A PARTNER, AND CARL B. VINIAR, ESQ., A PARTNER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND CROSS-APPELLANTS., 184 N.J. 161

Summary

The bank alleged the attorney helped his client transfer assets to defraud a creditor. The bank had lent money to the client before and after the alleged fraudulent transfer; it claimed it made a subsequent loan in reliance on misrepresentations in the attorney's opinion letter. The client defaulted on its debts to the bank; the bank obtained judgment against him and filed the instant suit, seeking judgment against the attorney and to set aside the client's asset transfers. The high court held the bank's conspiracy, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and negligent investigation claims should not have been dismissed, but the creditor fraud claim was properly dismissed. There was no cause of action for creditor fraud in New Jersey, but the attorney could be liable for conspiracy to violate the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) for his participation in the transfer. The bank had to prove that the attorney agreed to perform a fraudulent transfer, which, absent the ...