By way of the present motion, Plaintiff argues that the Defendant Purzyckis' violated the Act by transferring Mr. Purzycki's interest in the Property to Mrs. Purzycki in an effort to defraud his creditors. Plaintiff argues that the ruling of Judge Stripp necessarily determined the relevant factual issues presented in this action and the Defendants are collaterally estopped from arguing otherwise. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is a branch of res judicata that bars the re- litigation of any issue actually determined in an earlier proceeding. The rule was developed primarily to prevent judicial waste, harassment, inconsistent verdicts and the uncertainty that such verdicts would engender. Gonzalez, supra .
Collateral estoppel applies to both legal and factual issues decided in an earlier proceeding.
In support of the argument that the Defendants did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate this matter in the earlier proceeding, the Court was directed to Mr. Purzycki's filing at the bankruptcy court, specifically Section III of the Debtor's Proposed Findings of Contested Facts. Paragraph 68 thru 77 of the Trustees statement of facts deal with an alleged fraudulent transfer of property located at 3 Carroll Drive, Hillsborough. This issue is to be decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey. Accordingly, no factual findings are set forth herein on that issue. Defendant contends that it was his understanding that this issue was to be decided in this Court and as a result, did not submit any proofs to rebut the Trustee's proposed findings.