In Garden State Inv. v. Twp. of Brick, the Appellate Division agreed with the Chancery Division that purchasers of tax sale certificates could not rescind the purchase and receive back taxes paid because they later learned that the properties subject to those taxes had a restrictive easement on them. The plaintiffs relied on Twp. of … Read more
In Sullivan v. Max Spann Real Estate & Auction Co., (the Sullivan of Sullivan | Simon, LLC, was not a party), Sullivan hired Max Spann to auction a property. The highest bidder signed a sales contract at the auction and paid 10% of the full purchase price. When the buyer could not secure financing, the … Read more
In 41 E. Palisade Ave Real Estate v. City of Englewood, the 3rd Circuit assessed the providence of the District Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction in favor of the developer of an assisted-living facility. The developer sought to build its facility in an area of town zoned for single-family homes, though the zoning code … Read more
In In re Consolidated Appeals of Chester-Upland Sch. Dist., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the value generated by a billboard on private property affects the valuation of that property in a tax assessment.
In Pineda v. Perry, the Superior Court held that a party may appeal directly from the grant of a permanent injunction, even when judgment has not been entered. The Court then reviewed a dispute over an easement that was granted as part of a recorded subdivision. The Court held the easement remained and could only … Read more
The Superior Court addressed standing in the context of a foreclosure action in MB Fin. Bank v. Rao. More specifically, the Court considered whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved that it owned a Lost Note Affidavit. The Court found that the pleadings and evidence at trial did establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the affidavit and thus … Read more
In Catanzaro v. Pennell, the Superior Court reiterated the pleading standard necessary to succeed on a action to quiet title. The Court ruled that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead her case because she failed to assert that she and the defendant had a competing claim to title in the disputed real estate.
In Johnson v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the 2008 amendments to the Pennsylvania Loan Interest & Protection Law — which govern residential mortgages — do not apply retroactively to mortgages executed before the amendments took effect.
The Appellate Division ruled in State v. St. Mary’s Church Gloucester that the Eminent Domain Act of 1971 repealed a portion of N.J.S.A. 27:7-22. The latter statute had required the Commissioner of Transportation, upon taking property in eminent domain, to pay 6 percent interest on the judgment not previously held in ESCROW. However, the Eminent … Read more
The NJ Supreme Court determined in Crispino v. Twp. of Sparta that the methodology for valuing a special assessment under the Dam, Lake, and Stream Project Fund for an improvement on a private lake community’s dam is the same methodology found in Title 40. Under that test, the Court invalidated the special assessment at issue, finding … Read more