Zalma on Insurance
Education • Business
Insurance Claims professional presents articles and videos on insurance, insurance Claims and insurance law for insurance Claims adjusters, insurance professionals and insurance lawyers who wish to improve their skills and knowledge. Presented by an internationally recognized expert and author.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
April 11, 2025
Disbarred Criminal Lawyer Was Unable to Fool Bankruptcy Court

Bankruptcy Court Rules Against Lawyer-Felon Over Title to Real Property
Post 5046

Posted on April 11, 2025 by Barry Zalma

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/disbarred-criminal-lawyer-unable-fool-bankruptcy-zalma-esq-cfe-9pn7c, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6rwykj-disbarred-criminal-lawyer-was-unable-to-fool-bankruptcy-court.html and at https://youtu.be/VuKOHkdXRQI and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.

The litigation in the US Bankruptcy Court involved a dispute over the ownership of a property located at 1999 Deerfield Road, Watermill, New York. The Plaintiffs claim that a 2015 deed transferring the property to the Debtor was fraudulent and seek to have it declared void. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred under various legal theories, including judicial estoppel, res judicata, laches, unclean hands, and adverse possession.

In In re: RJT Food & Restaurant, LLC, Debtor, 2027 Deerfield Ltd And George Guldi Family Trust Of April 19, 2000 v. RJT Food & Restaurant, LLC, Richard Bivona, Danmik Investors LLC, Estate Of Robert Voto And Pensco Trust Company, F/B/O Edith K. Spiegel, IRA, No. 23-70447 (REG), Adv. Pro. No. No. 24-08007 (REG), United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York (April 4, 2025) found that the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by judicial estoppel and res judicata, but denied summary judgment based on tax estoppel, equitable estoppel, laches, unclean hands, adverse possession, and ratification of the 2015 deed.
FACTS
George Guldi’s Criminal History

On March 25, 2009, the Suffolk County District Attorney indicted Guldi, an attorney, for his participation in a mortgage fraud scheme. Later that year, Guldi was indicted in Suffolk County for theft of insurance funds. Guldi pled guilty in the 2009 Mortgage Fraud Case, and after a trial was convicted in the 2009 Insurance Fraud Case. Guldi was sentenced to a prison term of three to six years for grand larceny, and one to three years for insurance fraud. Guldi remained incarcerated from February 2011 until July 2017 when his conviction in the 2009 Insurance Fraud Case was overturned on appeal based on a finding of reversible error resulting from the trial court’s denial of Guldi’s challenge to one of the jurors.

In 2019, Guldi was indicted again, this time by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York for offenses committed during his prior incarceration. Guldi was convicted of wire and bank fraud in the 2019 Bank Fraud Case.

In August 2023, he was sentenced to three years in prison and directed to pay $358,556 in restitution. Guldi was re-incarcerated in March 2024 and is currently in prison serving his sentence.
DISCUSSION

The Trustee moved for summary judgment arguing that the Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed based on judicial estoppel, tax estoppel, equitable estoppel, res judicata, and laches. The Trustee also sought summary judgment on his second counterclaim, for adverse possession
Judicial Estoppel

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs should be judicially estopped from asserting any interest in the Property in this case because Guldi, in connection with his criminal matters, repeatedly failed to disclose any interest in, direct or indirect, or any claim to, the Property and/or any income generated by the Property.

Judicial estoppel generally requires that the party to be estopped and the party who took an inconsistent position in a prior proceeding, be the same.

Having determined that judicial estoppel is applicable to the facts of this case, the Court found that the necessary elements of that doctrine have been satisfied.
CONCLUSION

The Court granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, in part, and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment and quiet title with prejudice. The Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

Although for purposes of summary judgment this Court resolved ambiguities and drew factual inferences in favor of the Plaintiffs, the Court finds it beyond reason that Guldi, a businessman and former lawyer with experience in real estate matters, and also a person with severe financial troubles, could be unaware of the 2015 Deed, the Quiet Title Action or any of Bivona’s actions with respect to the Property, a house in Watermill, NY worth over $3 million.

The tangled web created by Guldi to, in the Court’s view, hide assets from creditors was in part predicated on the assumption that Bivona and other parties could be trusted to fulfill their role in the plan. In the end this appears to be Guldi’s fatal mistake.
ZALMA OPINION

Mr. Guldi proved that a lawyer, although knowledgeable on the law, makes an incompetent fraudster and explains why he is still imprisoned. His claim to title to the real property was barred by judicial estoppel and res judicata. The property stayed in the bankruptcy estate and Guldi’s latest attempt at fraud lost.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk

00:07:57
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
September 18, 2026
Expert May Only Testify to What Experience Supports

Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.

Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html

In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.

The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.

Law

The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...

00:03:10
September 17, 2026
Convicted on 29 Tax-Refund-Fraud Counts

150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846

Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.

FACTS

In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS

Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.

The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...

00:05:23
September 14, 2026
Court Enforces Fifth Amendment & Refuses to Compel Answers

Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution

Post 5489

Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma

Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud

See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr

In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.

Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.

After Great American ...

00:05:14
23 hours ago
Convicted of Felony Fraud You Lose the Right to Vote

Payment of Fines & Completion of Probation Reinstates Right to Vote

Post 4576

Posted on November 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma

To Restore Voting Rights The Felon Must Pay Fines of $546.00

In Florida Supreme Court Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, ETH F-26-377, No. F-26-377 (October 29, 2026) citizen unnamed and to Ron Desantis Governor, Cord Byrd the Secretary of State Florida Division of Elections provided an advisory opinion to a convicted felon about his right to vote:

To: [redacted] We received your request for an advisory opinion. You indicate that you have one or more felony convictions and request whether you are eligible to vote, including whether you have any outstanding legal financial obligations under section 98.0751, Florida Statutes, and, if so, a statement of the amount that must be paid to make you eligible to vote, and an explanation of how the amount was calculated.

The Division hereby responds to your request pursuant to its legal authority under section 106.23(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida ...

November 04, 2026
Castro Valdez Had an Available Administrative Appeal and Failed to Establish a Ground for Excusing

Administrative Review Permits the Agency to Apply its Expertise

Post 4574

In Erwin Jordan Castro Valdez v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, No. 26-cv-06147-BAS-JLB, United States District Court, S.D. California (October 30, 2026) Castro Valdez, a Cuban national paroled into the United States, was arrested on June 23, 2026, for alleged insurance fraud, grand theft, and making a false report to law enforcement. In his first habeas action, the district court ordered a bond hearing within fourteen days to determine whether the changed circumstances justified revoking his parole.

An Immigration Judge subsequently denied bond because of his pending state criminal case. Castro Valdez filed a second petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging that determination and requesting immediate release without first appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

LAW

According to the supplied text, § 2241 does not expressly require administrative exhaustion, but courts impose exhaustion as a prudential requirement. ...

November 03, 2026
Jury Found Prudential to be the Victim of Fraud

Insured’s Ordered to Pay Insurer for Fraud by the Insureds

Post 4573

Posted on November 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma

In The Prudential Insurance Company Of America v. Carol Gardina and George Gardina, No. 6:23-cv-1125-JSS-DCI, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division (October 22, 2026).

THE JURY TRIAL AND VERDICT

Plaintiff sued Defendants for numerous causes of action stemming from its allegations that Defendants fraudulently collected benefits under their long-term care insurance policies. Plaintiff's case proceeded to a nine-day jury trial, after which the jury found Defendants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and civil conspiracy.

The jury also found Defendant Carol Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $1,930,129 in compensatory damages and Defendant George Gardina liable to Plaintiff for $12,496 in compensatory damages and $20 in punitive damages. Thereafter, the court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor and awarded Plaintiff $1,930,129 in compensatory damages from...

post photo preview
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals