Brown v. National State Bank (In Re Brown)

73 B.R. 306
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedApril 20, 1987
Docket07-24224
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 73 B.R. 306 (Brown v. National State Bank (In Re Brown)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. National State Bank (In Re Brown), 73 B.R. 306 (N.J. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION

VINCENT J. COMMISA, Chief Judge.

The matter presently considered by this Court originated on June 4, 1986 where James L. Brown, the debtor herein, filed a Complaint in the United States Bankruptcy Court to revoke the transfer of certain realty, which the debtor claims was property of the bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, the debtor complains that the foregoing transfer violated Section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter the Code). In his prayer for relief the debtor asks this Court to:

A) Declare the real estate to be property of the debtor’s estate;
B) declare the subject transfer of title to debtor’s real estate in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362;
C) revoke the transfer of title to debtor’s real estate;
D) revest the debtor with title to the subject real estate by allowing the debtor to invoke the provisions of Section 1322 of the Code to revive, deaccelerate and cure all defaults in *307 the mortgage which was foreclosed upon.

Additionally, it should be noted that Mr. Brown’s Chapter 13 plan proposes to cure, under § 1322 of the Code, all mortgage arrears over a period of approximately 53 months.

This Opinion, based upon the record before the Court, shall constitute this Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052.

On September 12, 1974, the debtor-plaintiff executed a mortgage on his residence located at 45 Newfield Avenue, East Orange, New Jersey in the principal amount of $26,900.00. The Defendant, National State Bank, was the first mortgagee on said premises. From the inception of the mortgage obligation the debtor made regular payments on the mortgage up until June of 1984. At that time the debtor fell into arrears and on September 4, 1985 National State Bank (NSB) recovered a judgment of foreclosure from the Superior Court of New Jersey.

Pursuant to that Judgment, a Writ of Execution was forwarded to the Essex County Sheriff which commanded the Sheriff to sell the foreclosed premises for the sum of $26,952.44 together with costs which were taxed in the amount of $1,097.60. On March 11, 1986, the Sheriff conducted a foreclosure sale on the premises in question and sold said real estate to New Jersey Equitable Realty Company Pension Trust (N.J. Equitable) for the sum of $31,400.00.

On March 20, 1986, nine days after the Sheriff’s sale, the debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in this Court. On June 4,1986, the debtor filed the present Complaint to revoke the transfer of property to N.J. Equitable. In sum, the debtor contends that where a debtor files his Chapter 13 petition within the ten (10) day right of redemption period provided by New Jersey law, the debtor may avail himself of the provisions of § 1322 of the Code to set aside a foreclosure sale, reinstate the old mortgage and cure any and all mortgage defaults which led to the foreclosure. While the plaintiff’s contention is enticing, it must fail as a result of New Jersey’s utilization of the merger doctrine.

Absent a specific directive from Congress, the determination of property rights must be arrived at in accordance with applicable State law. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States opined in the case of Butner v. United States that:

Property rights are created and defined by state law. Unless some Federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interest should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in bankruptcy ...

Id. 440 U.S. 48, 55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 918, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979). Accordingly, this Court will apply New Jersey law in its determination of whether or not the debtor retained any right in the foreclosed mortgage after Judgment was rendered.

The purpose of a foreclosure action is to determine the right to foreclose and the amount due on the mortgage, to give the purchaser at a foreclosure sale the title and estate acquired by the mortgagee, as well as the estate of the mortgagor at the time the mortgage was executed, free from subsequent encumbrances. Central Penn Nat. Bank v. Stonebridge Ltd., 185 N.J.Super. 289, 448 A.2d 498 (Ch.1982).

Under New Jersey law every mortgagor is possessed of an “Equity of Redemption” which stems from the mortgage itself and the common law. Pursuant to the right aforesaid, the mortgagor is cloaked with the authority, subsequent to default, but prior to a judgment of foreclosure, to perform his obligation under the mortgage and have title to his property restored free and clear of the mortgage obligation. G. Nelson and D. Whitman, Real Estate Finance Law § 7.1 (2d ed. 1985).

Additionally, New Jersey law provides at Rule 4:65-5 1 the following pertinent language:

A sheriff who is authorized or ordered to sell real estate shall deliver a good and sufficient conveyance in pursuance of the *308 (foreclosure) sale unless a motion for the hearing of an objection to the sale is served upon him within 10 days after the sale or at any time thereafter before the delivery of the conveyance ...

In 1970, the New Jersey Supreme Court construed the foregoing rule to mean that “a mortgagor is entitled to redeem (foreclosed) property within a 10 day period for objections to sale and such right continues until an order confirming the sale is issued, in cases of timely filed objections.” Hardyston National Bank v. Tartamella, 56 N.J. 508, 513, 267 A.2d 495 (1970). As will be demonstrated below, these rights of redemption are the only property right which a mortgagor retains after a judgment of foreclosure. The Mortgagor does not, contrary to the debtor’s contention, retain any rights in the mortgage itself.

At judgment, a mortgagee gains a right to the judgment sum plus interest in exchange for his old right to receive periodic payments on the underlying debt. Although there are some early decisions to the contrary, 2 New Jersey case law has long held that the effect of a final judgment in foreclosure is to cause the mortgagee to merge, into the judgment thereby extinguishing the old terms of installment payments for a present right to have the obligation satisfied in full. Hudson Trust Co. v. Boyd, 80 N.J.Eq. 267, 84 A. 715 (Ch.1912); Heritage v. Bethel, 96 N.J.Eq. 515, 125 A. 917 (Ch.1924), Aff'd. 97 N.J.Eq. 366 (E. & A.1925); Colonial Bldg.-Loan Ass'n v. Mongiello Bros., Inc., 120 N.J.Eq. 270, 184 A. 635 (Ch.1936). Consequently, once the mortgage has been foreclosed merger automatically occurs. 3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Albanes v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (In re Albanes)
560 B.R. 155 (D. New Jersey, 2016)
Cash America Pawn, L.P. v. Murph
209 B.R. 419 (E.D. Texas, 1997)
In Re Ziyambe
200 B.R. 790 (D. New Jersey, 1996)
In Re Little
201 B.R. 98 (D. New Jersey, 1996)
Ananko v. Harsanyi (In Re Ananko)
89 B.R. 399 (D. New Jersey, 1988)
In Re McKeon
86 B.R. 350 (D. New Jersey, 1988)
In Re Farmer
81 B.R. 857 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
In Re McKinney
84 B.R. 751 (D. Kansas, 1988)
United States v. Wilson
2 C.M.A. 248 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 B.R. 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-national-state-bank-in-re-brown-njb-1987.