Beggars Tomb, LLC v. Block 333.02

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: A-0316-24
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0316-24

BEGGARS TOMB, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BLOCK 333.02, LOT 1, 2, 3, 2458 RT 38, TOWNSHIP OF CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY,

Defendants,

and

ASSESSED TO: CHERRY HILL ACQUISITIONS LLC,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________

Submitted November 6, 2025 ‒ Decided January 23, 2026

Before Judges Marczyk and Bishop-Thompson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Camden County, Docket No. F-002257-23. Hegge & Confusione, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Michael Confusione, of counsel and on the briefs).

Gary C. Zeitz, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Robin I. London-Zeitz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this tax sale certificate foreclosure case, defendant Cherry Hill

Acquisitions, LLC (Cherry Hill) appeals from the August 21, 2024 order

entering final judgment in favor of plaintiff Beggars Tomb, LLC (Beggars) and

granting its motion for default. Cherry Hill also appeals from the May 24, 2024

order, which granted Beggar's motion for summary judgment, struck Cherry

Hill's answer to the foreclosure complaint, directed the entry of default against

Cherry Hill, and remanded the matter to the Foreclosure Unit to proceed as an

uncontested matter. We affirm both orders.

I.

We presume the parties are familiar with the relevant facts and procedural

history, which need only be briefly summarized in this opinion. In 2010, Cherry

Hill purchased a "vacant and dilapidated" one-story building located at 2458

State Highway 38 in the Township of Cherry Hill (Township), which had not

operated as a restaurant since 2007.

A-0316-24 2 Over the course of the decade, the Township issued forty-nine property

maintenance violations regarding the hazardous condition of the building.

Cherry Hill failed to remediate the dangerous condition of the property and did

not secure the building to prevent unauthorized entry by squatters.

The violations continued after Cherry Hill disconnected both the gas and

electric service to the building in December 2021. During 2022 and 2023, a

sewage leak originated from the private sewage pump located on Cherry Hill's

property resulted in violation notices being issued for creating an "imminent

hazard" due to the ongoing sewage overflow. Cherry Hill received invoices

from the Township for multiple wastewater removals performed by its public

works department. The costs associated with these services were charged

against the property, pursuant to authorization from the Township Council.

After Cherry Hill failed to timely remediate the issue following notice, the

Township installed a new sewage pump on the property. The Township notified

Cherry Hill it would be responsible for the pump's rental fees and associated

costs, to alleviate the need for ongoing monitoring and wastewater removal by

the Township. Cherry Hill declined to accept responsibility for the sewage

pump rental, and the Township subsequently issued invoices to Cherry Hill for

the rent, fuel, and maintenance of the sewer pump from March 2022 through

A-0316-24 3 August 2023, totaling $122,305.47. The Township Council then authorized

these costs to be assessed as a charge against the property.

Cherry Hill failed to pay the 2022 municipal taxes and the property

maintenance charges assessed against the property. As a result, in June 2022,

the Township sold a tax sale certification to RTLS in the amount of $83,631.73.

RTLS subsequently assigned its tax sale certificate to Beggars Tomb, LLC.

Beggar's request for entry of default was granted. On January 13, 2023,

Cherry Hill was served with a pre-foreclosure notice. Thereafter, on February

24, 2023, Beggars filed a foreclosure complaint alleging that the property was

abandoned in accordance with the Abandoned Properties Rehabilitation Act

(APRA), N.J.S.A. 55:19-78 to -107.

Cherry Hill was served with the second pre-foreclosure notice, a notice of

in rem foreclosure, and a motion for final judgment on August 15, 2023. The

motion for final judgment was supported by: (1) a "Notice of Unsafe Structure"

requiring Cherry Hill to demolish the building; (2) an engineering report

obtained by Cherry Hill, which included photographs demonstrating the unsafe

condition of the property; (3) the May 19, 2023 abandoned property certification

executed by a Township construction official; and (4) an abandoned property

report from a private inspector describing the property as "boarded, deplorable[,]

A-0316-24 4 and vacant." On September 11, 2023, the court entered final judgment in the

amount of $214,759.20 and vested title to the property in Beggars. Cherry Hill

was served with the order.

On October 18, 2023, Cherry Hill moved to vacate the final judgment

under Rule 4:50-1(a) and (f). Beggars opposed the motion and requested

ownership costs of $22,289.44 to install electric, diagnose and repair the sewer

pump, and make repairs to abate the hazardous conditions at the property since

the entry of final judgment.

In light of New Jersey Supreme Court's Order issued on July 10, 2023,

and Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), which required a plaintiff

in a tax foreclosure proceeding to advise the property owner of their right to

surplus equity, the court vacated the final judgment.1 Pursuant to the December

1, 2023 order, the court conditioned vacatur of the final judgment on Cherry Hill

reimbursing Beggars for ownership costs in the amount of $22,289.44 within

twenty days of the order. Cherry Hill timely complied with the order.

1 Effective July 10, 2024, N.J.S.A. 54:5-87(a) and N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.64(a) were amended to expressly authorize the court to enter a final judgment of tax foreclosure that not only forecloses the right of redemption, but also bars any claims to surplus equity. A-0316-24 5 Thereafter, on December 21, 2023, Beggars filed an amended complaint

to foreclose on the abandoned property, supported by the construction official's

abandoned property certification. The complaint also notified Cherry Hill of its

right to allege the existence of surplus equity in the property, pursuant to the

temporary modification of Rule 4:64-1(c). Default was entered on January 12,

2024. Beggars also renewed its motion for final judgment.

Cherry Hill again moved to vacate default. On March 1, 2024, the court

entered an order denying Beggar's motion for final judgment and vacated the

default against Cherry Hill. An answer was subsequently filed by Cherry Hill.

The parties engaged in discovery. After discovery closed, Beggars moved

for summary judgment, entry of default, and to strike Cherry Hill's answer. It

also requested reimbursement of $260,302.85 for the tax lien. Cherry Hill

opposed the motion and cross-moved for the return of the costs reimbursed to

Beggars in accordance with the December 1, 2023 order and a declaration the

property was not abandoned.

On May 25, 2024, the court rendered an oral opinion granting Beggar's

motion. It rejected Cherry Hill's argument, characterizing it as expressing

Cherry Hill's "discontent, grievances, and aggravation" toward the Township.

The court concluded Beggars had fully complied with the statutory

A-0316-24 6 requirements. It further found competent evidence in the record established the

property was vacant and abandoned. The court denied Cherry Hill's cross-

motion, finding it "to be without any basis or merit." Two memorializing orders

were entered.

Following Beggar's motion for entry of final judgment, the court entered

final judgment by order dated August 21, 2024. The order also directed the

change in the caption and body of the complaint, as well as all subsequent

pleadings, be corrected to Beggars as the plaintiff.

II.

We review the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment de

novo. Samolyk v. Berthe, 251 N.J. 73, 78 (2022). Under that standard, the court

must "determine whether 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories

and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is

entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.'" Branch v. Cream-O-Land

Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). Thus, "[s]ummary

judgment should be granted . . . 'against a party who fails to make a showing

sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case,

and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Friedman v.

A-0316-24 7 Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472 (2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.

317, 322 (1986)). We do not defer to the trial court's legal analysis or statutory

interpretation. RSI Bank v. Providence Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 234 N.J. 459, 472

(2018).

Cherry Hill argues the court erred in granting summary judgment and

entering final judgment because (1) there is a material issue as to whether the

property was abandoned; (2) "discovery had just begun," which focused on the

issue of abandonment and the validity of the Tax Lien; and (3) other issues

precluded summary judgment.

The record does not support Cherry Hill's contentions. The APRA is

intended to provide local governments with a tool to rehabilitate abandoned

properties, thereby preventing blight and declining property values. See

N.J.S.A. 55:19-79. N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(b) provides the mechanism through which

property may be deemed abandoned and acquired through a tax sale foreclosure.

The statute provides the holder of a tax sale certificate may not institute

foreclosure proceedings earlier than two years from the date of the certificate's

acquisition, unless the property has been determined to be abandoned "either at

the time of the tax sale or thereafter." Id. Specifically, the APRA allows "any

municipality or abandoned property certificate holder" to bring an action in rem

A-0316-24 8 "to bar rights of redemption." N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.32. The filing must include a

certification by the public officer or the tax collector that the property is

abandoned. N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(b).

Here, the inquiry presented is whether the Cherry Hill property was

properly deemed abandoned under the APRA. The record shows the property

remained unoccupied since Cherry Hill acquired it in 2010. N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(b)

permits Beggars, as the holder of a tax sale certificate, to establish the property

is abandoned in two ways: (1) presenting a municipal determination of

abandonment pursuant to the APRA, N.J.S.A. 55:19-78; or (2) demonstrating

abandonment directly to the satisfaction of the court. Beggars relied on the

abandoned property certification dated May 18, 2023, which was completed by

the Township's construction official to demonstrate the property's abandonment.

The construction official made findings pursuant to N.J.S.A. 55:19-81,

specifically identifying the property as abandoned based on the criteria set forth

in the statute. These findings stated the property was vacant for more than six

months and the property: (1) "[wa]s in need of rehabilitation and no

rehabilitation ha[d] taken place during the last six months"; (2) was "unfit for

habitation, occupancy, or use"; (3) was subject to unauthorized entry that could

"lead[] to potential health and safety hazards . . . [and] failed to take reasonable

A-0316-24 9 and necessary measures to secure the property"; (4) created a "potential health

and safety hazards" because of the presence of "vermin or the accumulation of

debris, uncut vegetation[,] or physical deterioration"; and (5) "materially

affect[ed] the welfare" of the residents in close proximity because of the

"dilapidated appearance."

Cherry Hill argues the tax lien was invalid and the property was not

abandoned. It relies on the certification of its registered agent, who makes the

unsupported assertion the property was not abandoned. Cherry Hill references

numerous emails and other correspondences sent to it between 2020 and April

2024 concerning the notices of violations, communication between the parties'

attorneys regarding the property's structural issues and the sewage pump,

multiple inspections, and the Township's designation of the property as an

"unsafe structure."

Having reviewed the record, we are convinced Cherry Hill has not

established a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the property was

abandoned. Cherry Hill's registered agent's certification is belied by the

competent evidence in the record demonstrating abandonment. Self-serving

assertions that are unsupported by evidence are insufficient to create a genuine

issue of material fact. Miller v. Bank of Am. Home Loan Servicing, L.P., 439

A-0316-24 10 N.J. Super. 540, 551 (App. Div. 2015). "Competent opposition requires

'competent evidential material' beyond mere 'speculation' and 'fanciful

arguments.'" Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc., 404 N.J. Super. 415, 426 (App.

Div. 2009) (citation omitted).

In sum, there is unrebutted evidence in the record the property was

abandoned. It is equally unrebutted Cherry Hill made no attempt to remedy

issues at the property so it no longer fit the definition of an abandoned property.

See N.J.S.A. 55:19-81. Even giving Cherry Hill "the benefit of the most

favorable evidence and most favorable inferences drawn from that evidence ,"

the record demonstrates the property was "not just an eyesore" but a "hazard to

the community because it [would] only [be] in further disrepair." Est. of

Narleski v. Gomes, 244 N.J. 199, 205 (2020) (quoting Gormley v. Wood-El, 218

N.J. 72, 86 (2014)). Thus, we are satisfied the property meets the definition of

"abandoned property" under N.J.S.A. 55:19-81 and summary judgment was

properly granted.

We note Cherry Hill's merits brief does not address the May 24, 2024

order denying its cross-motion. Thus, we deem the issue waived and abandoned

on appeal. See Gormley, 218 N.J. at 95 n.8; Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP v.

A-0316-24 11 N.J. Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, 421 N.J. Super. 489, 496 n.5 (App. Div. 2011)

(holding that claims not addressed in merits brief deemed abandoned) .

III.

Cherry Hill argues the court erred in entering final judgment in favor of

Beggars and in entering default. Cherry Hill had "the right to redeem the tax

sale certificate at anytime before the final date for redemption set by the court

and 'until barred by the judgment of the Superior Court.'" Simon v. Cronecker,

189 N.J. 304, 319 (2007) (internal citation omitted) (quoting N.J.S.A. 54:5-86);

see also R. 4:64-6(b) ("Redemption may be made at any time until the entry of

final judgment . . . ."). The Township tax collector certified the taxes were paid

through the tax foreclosure sale. Cherry Hill, however, did not file an answer

and redeem the tax sale certificate. Therefore, we discern no abuse of discretion

in the granting of the motion for entry of final judgment. Customers Bank v.

Reitnour Inv. Props., LP, 453 N.J. Super. 338, 348 (App. Div. 2018).

To the extent not addressed, Cherry Hill's remaining arguments lack

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-0316-24 12