Summit Bank v. Thiel

740 A.2d 139, 162 N.J. 51, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1201
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedOctober 28, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 740 A.2d 139 (Summit Bank v. Thiel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Summit Bank v. Thiel, 740 A.2d 139, 162 N.J. 51, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1201 (N.J. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The issue raised in this appeal is whether a real property tax lien constitutes a “lien or encumbrance” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:61-16. That statute allows a purchaser at a sheriffs sale to be relieved of a bid, before delivery of the deed, if the notice of sale fails to list any lien or encumbrance on the property. A majority in the Appellate Division concluded that a real estate tax lien falls within the scope of the statute and allowed the purchaser to withdraw its bid. The ease is before us by virtue of a dissent in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-l(a). With two slight modifications, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion, reported at 325 N.J.Super. 532, 740 A.2d 140 (App.Div.1999).

We add that a mortgagee can give notice of any existing realty tax lien by inserting the amount of delinquent realty taxes due as of a specific date in the notices and advertisements required by law. The mortgagee shall not be obligated to update the tax lien information in the event that the first scheduled date of public sale is adjourned. Because the procedure required by *53 this case may represent a departure from the prevailing practice, this decision shall be applied to this case and to cases in which the public sale was conducted alter May 19, 1998, the date when the Appellate Division rendered its decision. See Olds v. Donnelly, 150 N.J. 424, 449-50, 696 A.2d 633 (1997); Crespo v. Stapf, 128 N.J. 351, 367-71, 608 A.2d 241 (1992).

We modify and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices O’HERN, STEIN, COLEMAN, and VERNIERO — 5.

Opposed — None.

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

Related

Wells Fargo National Association, Etc. v. Paul R. Hauke
New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2023
Henry v. New Jersey Department of Human Services
9 A.3d 882 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2010)
Mercury Capital Corp. v. Freehold Office Park, Ltd.
832 A.2d 369 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2003)
Ryker v. Current (In Re Ryker)
272 B.R. 602 (D. New Jersey, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
740 A.2d 139, 162 N.J. 51, 1999 N.J. LEXIS 1201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summit-bank-v-thiel-nj-1999.