Thanks for your response.
It's not a matter of the "name change". The thing that matters is whether the corporation is able to pay the judgment. If it cannot pay the judgment because it transferred its assets in anticipation of the liability on the lawsuit, then the transaction may be cancelled.
If the transfer of assets occurred prior to the lawsuit being filed without any intent to defraud the plaintiffs, then the quick mart is safe for now since it did not answer the lawsuit. The plaintiff would be required to either prove a fraudulent intent under the statute to be able to enforce the judgment against the quick mart, or would need to refile the lawsuit against the current incorporation. There may be a statute of limitations
problem in refiling the lawsuit, and the plaintiff may be in a situation where it waived its right to recover against the quick mart by failing to sue it in its proper name if the plaintiff cannot establish a fraudulent transfer under the act.
If the plaintiffs have attempted to satisfy the judgment on the corporation and they claim there are no assets left, then the plaintiffs can go back to the court and request that the transfer be cancelled. This would be in the form of a new lawsuit since the trial court has probably already lost original jurisdiction.
The statute of limitations on this kind of fraudulent conveyance is 6 years from the date of the conveyance, so its probably not too late.
You say it was a "name change." Is it the same corporation which simply changed names, or did the owners dissolve the prior corporation and then open up a new corporation with a different name.
If it is the same corporation and they simply changed the name, then they are still liable on the judgment.