STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES A. STUARTÂ (13-09-0949, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3262-15T4

Mill Pointe Condominium Association obtained a Law Division judgment against unit owner Asad (Syed) Rizvi for $19,444.61 in unpaid common-expense assessments.
Deutsche Bank, as trustee, filed a Chancery Division foreclosure on Rizvi's mortgage; the Association was a named defendant and filed a non-contesting answer.
The condominium unit remained vacant; the Association moved in the Law Division for appointment of a rent receiver to lease the unit and apply rental proceeds to its judgment.
The Law Division required service on the Bank; the Bank opposed, arguing a receiver/lease would interfere with foreclosure and effectively force it to act as landlord.
The Law Division denied the Association's motion without prejudice and furnished limited reasons after remand for amplification; subsequently the Chancery Division entered final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank and a sheriff's sale was forthcoming.
The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal as moot (without prejudice to other collection remedies), concluding adjudication would have no practical effect given the foreclosure judgment and imminent sheriff's sale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a condominium association may obtain appointment of a rent receiver under N.J.S.A. 2A:17-66 while a mortgage foreclosure is pending	Association: statute permits appointing a rent receiver to lease the vacant unit and apply rents to its judgment	Bank: appointing a receiver and leasing would interfere with foreclosure rights and force Bank to act as landlord	Not decided on merits — court declined to reach substantive issue because appeal became moot after foreclosure judgment
Whether the appeal should proceed despite foreclosure judgment and imminent sheriff's sale	Association: issues are significant and could warrant review	Bank: foreclosure judgment renders the appeal impractical and moot	Appeal dismissed as moot; practical effect of relief was negligible given foreclosure judgment
Whether remand to Law Division for further consideration was warranted	Association: remand could allow appointment before foreclosure sale	Bank: remand unnecessary because foreclosure rights take priority	Court declined to remand, noting no sensible justification given posture and foreclosure judgment
Whether the case presented an issue "capable of repetition, yet evading review"	Association: novel and recurring problem potentially fits the exception	Bank: did not concede exception applies	Court found the exception inapplicable here and therefore refused to decide the merits

De Vesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420 (mootness doctrine; courts avoid cases where controversy no longer exists)
Oxfeld v. N.J. State Bd. of Educ., 68 N.J. 301 (mootness principles)
Silviera-Francisco v. Bd. of Educ., 224 N.J. 126 (finality and appellate jurisdiction considerations)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (exception for "capable of repetition, yet evading review")
Finkel v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of Hopewell, 434 N.J. Super. 303 (discussion of justiciability and mootness)
N.Y. Susquehanna & W. Ry. Corp. v. State Dep't of Treasury, Div. of Taxation, 204 N.J. Super. 630 (practical-effect test for mootness)