Estate of Johnson, Matter of
| Decision Date | 03 April 1990 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Raymond F. JOHNSON, Jr., Deceased. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Ostrowitz & Ostrowitz, Manalapan, for appellant, The Central Jersey Bank & Trust Co. (Louis A. Novellino, Roseland, on the brief).
Jahos, Broege & Shaheen, for respondent (Robert D. Broege, Red Bank, on the brief).
Before Judges BRODY and SKILLMAN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SKILLMAN, J.A.D.
This action was filed by Evan William Jahos, as executor of the estate of Raymond F. Johnson, Jr. The first count of the complaint seeks a declaration that the estate is insolvent, an order fixing a schedule for an accounting and an award of reasonable fees to the attorneys for the estate. The second count seeks a judgment against the Central Jersey Bank and Trust Company (Central Jersey) for $32,316 plus interest representing the balance in the estate checking account which the bank seized in partial satisfaction of a judgment against the estate for a debt of the decedent.
Central Jersey filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the second count of the complaint which was heard together with the executor's application for a declaration of insolvency of the estate. The trial court determined that the estate was insolvent and that Central Jersey could not retain the balance in the checking account in partial satisfaction of its judgment against the estate. These rulings were memorialized in an order entered on May 1, 1989, entitled "Amended Judgment of Insolvency and Denying Motion of Creditor Bank for Summary Judgment," which among other things ordered Central Jersey to replace the sum of $32,316 it had removed from the estate's checking account. Central Jersey appeals from the parts of the May 1, 1989 order denying its motion for summary judgment and entering judgment in favor of the estate for the balance in the checking account.
Preliminarily, we note that the order from which this appeal has been taken is interlocutory, because it does not resolve all issues as to all parties. See Henderson v. Morristown Memorial Hospital, 198 N.J.Super. 418, 426-427, 487 A.2d 742 (App.Div.1985), certif. den. 101 N.J. 250, 501 A.2d 922 (1985). Indeed, the order expressly states that:
All other matters brought to the attention of the Court in these proceedings, including without limitation, the allowance of reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be determined upon presentation of an application for approval of his Account and distribution by the Executor.
The trial court also expressly reserved decision on all issues relating to priorities among creditors. However, since Central Jersey originally filed a motion for leave to appeal which it later withdrew on the mistaken assumption that the amended order entered on May 1, 1989 was a final judgment and the matter has been fully briefed by all parties, we grant leave to appeal nunc pro tunc. See R. 2:4-4(b)(2).
The facts pertinent to this appeal are undisputed. The decedent executed a demand note for $80,000 to Central Jersey on August 7, 1984. This note remained unpaid at the time of decedent's death on May 23, 1988. Upon his appointment as executor of the estate, Mr. Jahos opened a checking account at Central Jersey. During the period of administration, Central Jersey brought suit on the note against the estate. The estate failed to answer the complaint and a default judgment was entered for $100,704.73. Central Jersey set off the $32,316 balance in the estate's checking account in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The executor then filed this lawsuit alleging among other things that the setoff was invalid.
The trial court stated in an oral opinion that during decedent's lifetime Central Jersey could have set off any balance decedent had with the bank against his indebtedness. However, upon his death, decedent's money passed to his estate and Central Jersey assumed the same position as any other creditor of the estate. Consequently, Central Jersey could not assert a setoff against the estate's account in the bank in order to establish a preference for itself in relation to other creditors. Rather, it was required to pursue its claim pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:22-1 et seq. We agree with the trial court's analysis and therefore affirm.
The facts of this case are essentially the same as in Kanter v. Security Trust Co., 110 N.J.L. 361, 165 A. 430 (Sup.Ct.1933). In Kanter, as in this case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Motors Corp. v. City of Linden
...or which denies the application pending the completion of further discovery is not a final judgment. See In re Estate of Johnson, 240 N.J.Super. 134, 136, 572 A.2d 1163 (App.Div.1990). Although the order from which this appeal has been taken is interlocutory, the appeal has been fully brief......
-
Kattoura v. Patel
...but not the amount of the obligation, is only interlocutory and hence not appealable as of right. See In re Estate of Johnson, 240 N.J.Super. 134, 136, 572 A.2d 1163 (App.Div.1990). An order which fails to adjudicate the liability of a party is likewise not a final judgment. Healey v. Towns......
-
Family First Federal Sav. Bank v. DeVincentis
...was apparently not final since it did not dispose of all claims as against all parties. See, e.g., Matter of Estate of Johnson, 240 N.J.Super. 134, 136, 572 A.2d 1163 (App.Div.1990). We elect, however, to grant leave to appeal nunc pro tunc in the interests of Following the entry of the for......
-
Jeter v. Stevenson
...Stevenson, the grant of summary judgment as to Moody was interlocutory, not final. R. 2:2-3(a)(1); Matter of Estate of Johnson, 240 N.J.Super. 134, 136, 572 A.2d 1163 (App.Div.1990) (final judgment must dispose of all issues as to all parties). We have opted, however, to grant leave to appe......