CONTRACTS — CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE — RES JUDICATA

11-2-6337 Murray v. Acosta, App. Div. (per curiam) (7 pp.) Finding that plaintiff’s fraudulent-concealment count in this Burlington County action is essentially the same as the proposed fraudulent-concealment count that was rejected by the federal district court in a breach-of-contract action that had been removed from Camden County to that court, the panel concludes that res judicata principles prohibit the relitigation of plaintiff’s fraudulent-concealment allegations in the present action and affirms the trial court’s dismissal of that claim.

DEBTOR/CREDITOR — SHERIFF’S SALES