FWDSL & ASSOCIATES, LP VS. RICHARD BEREZANSKY (F-033373-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5385-15T2

FWDSL purchased a 2013 tax sale certificate on Richard and Donna Berezansky’s Manville home and, after the statutory waiting period and paying municipal taxes, filed foreclosure in October 2015.
The State held a $70,000 judgment against Richard Berezansky that affected title.
Before redemption period expired, Bandi Property Group moved to intervene and redeem, asserting a profit‑sharing agreement with the Berezanskys and claiming title.
Under the agreement Bandi would pay liens/judgments (approx. $43,000 in tax liens plus the $70,000 judgment), pay the Berezanskys $10,000, permit rent‑free occupancy through July 2, 2016, improve and sell the property, and split net proceeds 35% to Bandi / 65% to the Berezanskys.
Chancery Judge Goodzeit found Bandi’s consideration was not nominal and permitted intervention and redemption; FWDSL appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether profit‑sharing agreements are per se barred by N.J.S.A. 54:5‑89.1	Such agreements are contrary to public policy and should be invalidated	Cronecker permits third‑party arrangements so long as consideration is more than nominal	Profit‑sharing agreements are not per se forbidden; validity depends on whether consideration is nominal
Whether Bandi’s consideration was nominal	Bandi’s obligations are illusory; payments will be recouped and owners effectively pay by losing equity	Bandi provided real, tangible benefits (cash, lien/judgment satisfaction, occupancy, improvements, and a 65% share)	Consideration was more than nominal — $10,000 upfront and other obligations are substantial
Whether nominality should be judged by strict mathematical tests	Plaintiff urges percentage/economic‑realities tests to show nominality	Defendant: court should apply an all‑the‑circumstances, owner‑focused test from Cronecker	Court rejects strict formulas and applies flexible, circumstance‑driven test focused on benefit to owner
Whether Wattles/Bron control and mandate invalidation here	Plaintiff contends Wattles/Bron require invalidation when owner’s recovery is small	Defendant: Cronecker refines those precedents and allows arrangements that provide meaningful relief	Court applies Cronecker and finds Wattles/Bron do not mandate invalidation in all profit‑sharing cases

Bron v. Weintraub, 42 N.J. 87 (1964) (criticized ‘‘heir‑hunting’’ and informed legislative response restricting nominal‑consideration interventions)
Wattles v. Plotts, 120 N.J. 444 (1990) (interpreting statutory bar on interventions based on nominal consideration)
Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304 (2007) (adopts flexible, under‑all‑the‑circumstances nominal‑consideration test and permits third‑party financing that gives meaningful relief)
Savage v. Weissman, 355 N.J. Super. 429 (App. Div. 2002) (endorsed percentage test rejected by Cronecker)
Corestates/N.J. Nat’l Bank v. Charles Schaefer Sons, Inc., 386 N.J. Super. 554 (App. Div. 2006) (discussed economic‑realities and windfall tests rejected by Cronecker)