Francis v. United Jersey Bank

407 A.2d 1253, 171 N.J. Super. 34
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedOctober 26, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 1253 (Francis v. United Jersey Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Francis v. United Jersey Bank, 407 A.2d 1253, 171 N.J. Super. 34 (N.J. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

171 N.J. Super. 34 (1979)
407 A.2d 1253

JOHN J. FRANCIS, HUGH P. FRANCIS AND J. RAYMOND BERRY, TRUSTEES OF PRITCHARD & BAIRD INTERMEDIARIES CORP., PRITCHARD & BAIRD, INC., P & B INTERMEDIARIES CORP., AND P & B, INC., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,
v.
UNITED JERSEY BANK, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES H. PRITCHARD, LILLIAN P. OVERCASH, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LILLIAN G. PRITCHARD AND LILLIAN P. OVERCASH, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued October 16, 1979.
Decided October 26, 1979.

*35 Before Judges FRITZ, KOLE and LANE.

Mr. Clive S. Cummis argued the cause for appellants (Messrs. Sills, Beck, Cummis, Radin & Tischman, attorneys; Mr. Thomas J. Demski, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Kenneth F. Oettle on the brief).

Mr. Hugh P. Francis argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Francis & Berry, attorneys).

PER CURIAM.

We cannot concur with the trial judge in his opinion that the defalcations which here concern us and which are so indisputably manifest might be characterized as fraudulent conveyances as that term is known to the law. The fact is that essentially all *36 the misappropriated monies were actually trust funds. Conversion would be a more appropriate term. The distinction does not affect the result or our view of its propriety.

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the trial judge, 162 N.J. Super. 355 (Law Div. 1978), following a motion for new trial or in the alternative a reduction in the judgment, supplementing an oral opinion delivered at the conclusion of the trial, and in turn supplemented by a letter dated August 18, 1978.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gutman v. Howard Savings Bank
748 F. Supp. 254 (D. New Jersey, 1990)
Lynch v. Patterson
701 P.2d 1126 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1985)
Telefest, Inc. v. Vu-TV, Inc.
591 F. Supp. 1368 (D. New Jersey, 1984)
Francis v. United Jersey Bank
412 A.2d 791 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1980)
State v. Pritchard
412 A.2d 1335 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 A.2d 1253, 171 N.J. Super. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-v-united-jersey-bank-njsuperctappdiv-1979.