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
May 01, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter – May 1, 2026

Happy Law Day

ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL

ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026

Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.

DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division

Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort

On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...

00:08:23
placeholder
April 30, 2026
The Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Saves a Claim

When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment

Post number 5345

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.

FACTS

American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...

00:08:38
placeholder
April 29, 2026
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense

Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense

See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.

In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.

Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).

After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...

00:11:27
placeholder
12 hours ago

It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages

Post number 5347

No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice

In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.

BACKGROUND

In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

State Farm filed motion for summary...

post photo preview
13 hours ago

It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages

Post number 5347

No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice

In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.

BACKGROUND

In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

State Farm filed motion for summary...

post photo preview
April 30, 2026
Investigation of First Party Property Claims

What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.

Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.

A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...

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