Carteret Sav. Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. Davis

3 Citing cases

  1. Carteret Sav. and Loan Ass'n, F.A. v. Davis

    105 N.J. 344 (N.J. 1987)   Cited 29 times
    Finding that foreclosure sales rarely bring fair market value prices and that eighty-nine percent are purchased through nominal bids under $300

    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.

  2. Powell v. Giddens

    231 N.J. Super. 49 (App. Div. 1989)   Cited 3 times

    " 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.

  3. First Mut. Corp. v. Samojeden

    214 N.J. Super. 122 (App. Div. 1986)   Cited 22 times
    In Samojeden, the Appellate Division considered whether a notice of sale given pursuant to R. 4:65-2 binds the noticed parties for all time thereafter, irrespective of when the sale is actually held and irrespective of their actual knowledge of the eventual sale date.

    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.