The Law Division, on the Money Store's action to compel the sheriff to accept the redemption, found "no reason to rule that the extended right to redeem does not apply to a * * * title holder in the Money Store's position * * *." The Appellate Division affirmed. 200 N.J. Super. 167 (1985). In its view, as the purchaser at the foreclosure sale, the Money Store acquired all the rights of the owner with respect to the mortgaged premises, subject only to the lien of the other outstanding mortgage.
" See Champion v. Hinkle, 45 N.J. Eq. 162 (E. A. 1888); Carteret Sav. Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. Davis, 200 N.J. Super. 167, 170 (App.Div. 1985), rev'd on other grounds 105 N.J. 344 (1987); ( Cunningham Tischler, Mortgages) 30 N.J.Practice, ยง 201 at 51 n. 18 (1975). Lastly, we deal with the trial court's suggestion that the interests of the junior encumbrancers require setting aside the foreclosure judgment and the sale.
Cf. Hardyston Nat. Bank v. Tartamella, 56 N.J. 508 (1970). And see Carteret Sav. Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. Davis, 200 N.J. Super. 167 (App.Div. 1985); Lobsenz v. Micucci Holdings, Inc., 127 N.J. Super. 50 (App.Div. 1974). We so conclude for obvious jurisprudential reasons.