JOEMAX REALTY, INC. VS. STONEWALL OF SADDLE RIVER, L.P.(L-3629-14, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3377-14T2

Joemax Realty leased commercial premises to North American Linen (NA Linen); NA Linen struggled financially and owed over $3M to Stonewall, a creditor controlled by Paul D'Ambrosio.
In April 2008 NA Linen sold most assets to Northeast Linen Supply (NELS) for $3,382,686, paid in part by a promissory note (the Promissory Note); NA Linen assigned that Note to Stonewall and signed a Release of Security Interest dated April 17, 2008.
Joemax obtained a default judgment against NA Linen for unpaid rent in July 2009 and later sought a writ to attach the Promissory Note.
Joemax received (1) a January 8–14, 2010 exchange of letters notifying it the Promissory Note was subordinated/assigned, (2) a copy of the Promissory Note in January 2010, and (3) the April 17, 2008 Release of Security Interest among documents produced by NELS in July 2010.
On September 30, 2014 Joemax filed a verified complaint alleging the 2008 assignment/transfer of the Promissory Note was fraudulent under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).
Trial court granted defendants summary judgment as time-barred, dismissed Joemax’s complaint with prejudice, denied Joemax’s reconsideration, and denied defendants’ motion for sanctions; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Joemax’s UFTA fraudulent-transfer claims are time‑barred	Court applied outdated statute; Joemax not bound by earlier disclosure	Joemax discovered/was notified of the assignment by Jan–Jul 2010 and waited >4 years	Claims barred by UFTA statute of limitations because discovery occurred by July 2010; summary judgment affirmed
When did Joemax "discover" the transfer for SOL purposes?	Discovery was later; tolling/reckoning disputed	Letters and produced documents in Jan–Jul 2010 put Joemax on notice	Discovery established by January/July 2010 documents; SOL begun then
Application of the entire controversy doctrine re: Paul D’Ambrosio	Joemax contended doctrine did not preclude its claims	Defendants contended prior Monmouth County settlement barred claims	Appellate court did not reach doctrine question as SOL dispositive; trial court had found doctrine barred claims against Paul but affirmance rests on SOL
Whether defendants were entitled to fees/sanctions for frivolous litigation	Joemax acted in good faith; suit not frivolous	Defendants sought sanctions under N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and R.1:4-8	Denial of sanctions affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion because the timeliness issue was not initially obvious

Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395 (discussing de novo review for summary judgment)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard discussion)
United Hearts v. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. 379 (App. Div.) (standard of review for sanctions motions)
Masone v. Levine, 382 N.J. Super. 181 (App. Div. 2005) (sanctions and fee principles)
McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, 132 N.J. 546 (1993) (narrow construction of frivolous-litigation standard)
Wyche v. Unsatisfied Claims & Judgment Fund of N.J., 383 N.J. Super. 554 (App. Div. 2006) (sanctions narrowly applied)