Clarksboro, LLC v. Kronenberg
208 A.3d 884
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2019Background
- Christiana Trust filed a tax-foreclosure complaint after purchasing a tax sale certificate; U.S. Bank (holder of a prior tax certificate) was named as defendant.
- An order fixing time/place/amount of redemption set July 24, 2017 as the redemption date; U.S. Bank did not answer but filed a notice of appearance in August 2017.
- Plaintiff moved for final judgment on August 14, 2017; matter was transferred from the Foreclosure Unit to Chancery after defendant opposed and sought a stay citing environmental issues and an attempted sale.
- The Chancery Division entered final judgment on January 10, 2018 and denied U.S. Bank’s request for oral argument, citing Palombi and Rule 5:5-4.
- The court’s written reasons said defendant had not paid concurrent property taxes and equities favored plaintiff; the court did not provide a case-specific reason for denying oral argument on a contested, dispositive motion.
- The Appellate Division vacated and remanded because the trial court denied oral argument without a valid on-the-record, case-specific reason; it did not decide a separate redemption-timing issue raised later.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral argument was required on plaintiff’s opposed motion for final judgment | No oral argument required; plaintiff did not request it | Oral argument was required as of right for a substantive, dispositive motion | Court abused discretion by granting final judgment without oral argument or a case-specific reason for denying it; judgment vacated and remanded |
| Whether Rule 1:6-2 allows denying argument on substantive motions | Rule permits discretion in some contexts (cites Palombi) | Rule entitles parties to oral argument on substantive motions when requested | Rule generally grants argument as of right on non-discovery/non-calendar motions; denial must be justified on the record |
| Whether failure to announce return date deprived defendant of redemption rights | Not directly argued by plaintiff in opinion | Failure to inform return date prevented defendant from knowing when redemption period would end | Appellate court noted the issue but did not decide it (raised first at oral argument) |
| Whether equities favored plaintiff to enter judgment despite defendant’s asserted defenses | Plaintiff paid taxes and held priority lien; defendant could have redeemed | Defendant had environmental issues and active sale efforts; had appearance and prior judgment history | Trial court relied on equities to enter judgment, but entry without oral argument was improper; merits not resolved on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982) (factors for staying or delaying foreclosure proceedings)
- Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010) (Family Part rule on oral argument; inapposite to non-family substantive motions)
- Vellucci v. DiMella, 338 N.J. Super. 345 (App. Div. 2001) (Rule 1:6-2 entitlement to oral argument on substantive motions)
- Raspantini v. Arocho, 364 N.J. Super. 528 (App. Div. 2003) (denial of oral argument on dispositive motion requires on-the-record reason)
- Town of Phillipsburg v. Block 1508, Lot 12, 380 N.J. Super. 159 (App. Div. 2005) (tax-foreclosure procedure and effect of final judgment on redemption rights)
- Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (2007) (right of redemption continues until barred by Superior Court judgment)
- Savage v. Weissman, 355 N.J. Super. 429 (2002) (procedural background on tax sale foreclosure)
- Simon v. Rando, 374 N.J. Super. 147 (App. Div. 2005) (effect of non-redemption by court-set date leads to indefeasible fee simple title)