CLARKSBORO, LLC VS. MARK KRONENBERG (F-031537-16, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3572-17T4
CLARKSBORO, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
v. May 16, 2019
APPELLATE DIVISION
MARK KRONENBERG,
Executor of the ESTATE
OF ELBRIDGE KRONENBERG,
MARK KRONENBERG,
individually, ERICH V.
KRONENBERG, NICHOLE
KRONENBERG, wife of ERICH
KRONENBERG, TLG INVESTMENTS,
LLC, GREAT COVE MARINA, INC.,
BRUNSWICK CORP., DANIEL
O'HEARN, RCM HOLDINGS, LLC,
VERIZON DIRECTORY SERVICES
f/k/a BELL ATLANTIC n/k/a DEX
MEDIA, NATIONAL CITY BANK
n/k/a PNC BANK, NA, CAVALRY
SPVI, LLC, SUZANNE W. GINTER,
and STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendants,
and
US BANKCUST/
SASS MUNI VI DTR,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________
Argued April 3, 2019 – Decided May 16, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz, Currier and Mayer.1
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No. F-
031537-16.
Susan B. Fagan-Rodriguez argued the cause for
appellant (Rodriguez Law Group, LLC, attorneys;
Susan B. Fagan-Rodriguez, on the brief).
Elliott J. Almanza argued the cause for respondent
(Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi
& Gill, attorneys; Keith A. Bonchi, of counsel and on
the brief; Elliott J. Almanza, on the brief).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KOBLITZ, P.J.A.D.
In this tax foreclosure matter, defendant, U.S. Bank-Cust/Sass Muni VI
DTR (U.S. Bank), a large tax lien investment fund, appeals from the January 10,
2018 final judgment and the February 22, 2018 order denying its motion to
vacate final judgment. U.S. Bank had previously obtained ownership of real
property by foreclosing on a tax sale certificate, and then failed to pay property
taxes. The Chancery Division granted the opposed motion for final judgment
1
Judge Mayer did not participate in oral argument. She joins the opinion with
counsel's consent. R. 2:13-2(b).
A-3572-17T4
2
without affording the requested oral argument or providing a cogent reason to
deny argument. U.S. Bank thus was not told when final judgment would be
entered, which would also end its redemption period. Because oral argument
was not provided, we reverse.
On November 21, 2016, Christiana Trust filed the present complaint to
foreclose the tax sale certificate. Christiana Trust named U.S. Bank as a
defendant because of a prior tax certificate held on the property. On June 8,
2017, defendant was served with an "order fixing the time, place and amount of
redemption." The order fixed July 24, 2017 as the time for redemption.
Defendant did not file an answer or otherwise plead. Defendant did, however,
file a notice of appearance in August 2017. 2
On August 14, 2017, Christiana Trust3 filed a motion for final judgment
with the Foreclosure Unit of the Superior Court. Defendant asserts it
was "unable to complete resolution of the environmental assessment by the time
[p]laintiff moved for entry of final judgment." Defendant opposed the motion
2
Defendant explains it "did not file an answer to the tax foreclosure complaint
as it did not intend to delay the matter by offering spurious defenses" and instead
filed the notice of appearance "to keep track of the progress of the case whil e
conducting the environmental inquiry."
3
Two weeks later plaintiff Clarksboro, LLC took an assignment of the
certificate, substituting into the matter.
A-3572-17T4
3
and sought a temporary stay, alleging it had filed a complaint in 2013 , obtained
final judgment in 2016, and owned the property. Defendant certified the
property had "extensive environmental problems." Defendant asserted it was
"attempting to sell the [p]roperty," and "hope[d] to have a contract to sell the
[p]roperty in the near future." After opposition was filed, the Foreclosure Unit
sent the contested matter to the Chancery Division.
On January 10, 2018, the court entered final judgment. In its statement of
reasons, the court explained:
Defendant fails to demonstrate any of the [Crowe v.
DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982)] factors. Defendant raises
no valid legal argument or defense that would defeat
[p]laintiff's right to proceed with the foreclosure.
Defendant asserts that it is in the process of attempting
to sell the property and it hopes to have a contract to
sell same in the near future. On the other hand,
[d]efendant has not paid the concurrent property taxes
although it completed its own foreclosure and has held
an unrecorded ownership interest for the past sixteen
months since May 2016. Further, [p]laintiff argues that
[d]efendant is a large investment fund with financial
ability to redeem the tax lien, and that it could easily
redeem the tax lien and preserve its interest. The court
is persuaded that equities favor [p]laintiff as [p]laintiff
has been paying property taxes to secure the priority of
its lien, and [d]efendant has failed to demonstrate any
elements that warrant stay of the entry of final
judgment.
A-3572-17T4
4
The order further provided: "Plaintiff did not request oral argument. Defendant
opposed and requested oral argument. The court did not hear oral argument
pursuant to Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 2010)."
In Palombi, we considered Rule 5:5-4 in the context of a litigious family
matter. Rule 5:5-4(a) states, in pertinent part:
Motions in family actions shall be governed by [Rule]
1:6-2(b) except that, in exercising its discretion as to
the mode and scheduling of disposition of motions, the
court shall ordinarily grant requests for oral argument
on substantive and non-routine discovery motions and
ordinarily deny requests for oral argument on calendar
and routine discovery motions.
[(emphasis added).]
Thus, the Family Part rule does not mandate oral argument for substantive
motions.
Defendant argues the court abused its discretion in denying oral argument
because the motion was dispositive and involved substantive issues. Rule 1:6-
2(d) provides:
Except as otherwise provided by Rule 5:5-4 (family
actions), no motion shall be listed for oral argument
unless a party requests oral argument in the moving
papers or in timely-filed answering or reply papers, or
unless the court directs. A party requesting oral
argument may, however, condition the request on the
motion being contested. If the motion involves pretrial
discovery or is directly addressed to the calendar, the
A-3572-17T4
5
request shall be considered only if accompanied by a
statement of reasons and shall be deemed denied unless
the court otherwise advises counsel prior to the return
day. As to all other motions, the request shall be
granted as of right.
[(emphasis added).]
In Vellucci v. Dimella, 338 N.J. Super. 345, 347 (App. Div. 2001), we
addressed Rule 1:6-2:
[I]t should hardly be necessary to point out that Rule
1:6-2 sets forth an entitlement to oral argument on
substantive motions when argument is properly
requested. The trial court retains discretion as to
whether oral argument is necessary or appropriate when
"the motion involves pretrial discovery or is directly
addressed to the calendar . . . ." R. 1:6-2(d). But, "[a]s
to all other motions the request shall be granted as of
right."
[338 N.J. Super. at 347 (alteration in original).]
Similarly, in Raspantini, we discussed the requirement for a court to set forth
the reason for denying oral argument:
In light of the clear mandate of [Rule 1:6-2(d)], because
defendants' initial motion sought dispositive relief,
plaintiffs' request for oral argument should have been
granted as of right. While a request for oral argument
respecting a substantive motion may be denied, see
Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. v. Checchio, 335
N.J. Super. 495, 497-98 (App. Div. 2000); Spina
Asphalt Paving v. Fairview, 304 N.J. Super. 425, 427
n.1 (App. Div. 1997); cf. Cobra Products, Inc. v.
Federal Ins. Co., 317 N.J. Super. 392, 396 (App. Div.
A-3572-17T4
6
1998), the reason for the denial of the request, in that
circumstance, should itself be set forth on the record.
[Raspantini v. Arocho, 364 N.J. Super. 528, 531-32
(2003).]
Here, the court did not provide a case-specific reason for denying oral
argument when granting plaintiff's opposed motion to enter judgment. Citing to
Palombi, a post-divorce appeal that relies on a Family Part rule, is insufficient.
For the first time at oral argument before us, defendant raises an issue
springing from the fact that the court not only denied oral argument, but it also
failed to inform the parties of the return date on the motion . The motion was
originally filed with the Foreclosure Unit on August 14, 2017 and finally
decided by the court on January 10, 2018. Defendant argues that the failure to
inform the parties of the return date, the date on which final judgment might be
entered, deprived defendant of its full right to redeem.
"After two years, the purchaser of the tax sale certificate . . . may
commence a proceeding known as a tax sale foreclosure to foreclose or bar the
property owner's right of redemption." Town of Phillipsburg v. Block 1508, Lot
12, 380 N.J. Super. 159, 163 (App. Div. 2005) (quoting Savage v. Weissman,
355 N.J. Super. 429, 436 (App. Div. 2002)). The property owner maintains "the
right to redeem the tax sale certificate at any time before the final date for
A-3572-17T4
7
redemption set by the court, N.J.S.A. 54:5-54, and 'until barred by the judgment
of the Superior Court.'" Simon v. Cronecker, 189 N.J. 304, 319 (2007) (quoting
N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(a)); see also R. 4:64-6(b) ("[r]edemption may be made at any
time until the entry of final judgment"). "The holder of a prior tax sale certificate
has an absolute right of redemption until that right is cut off by a judgment in
foreclosure." Town of Phillipsburg, 380 N.J. Super. at 165. "[I]f the certificate
is not redeemed by a party before the date set in the court's order of redemption
and entry of final judgment, [the purchaser may] obtain an absolute, indefeasible
estate in fee simple." Id. at 167 (quoting Simon v. Rando, 374 N.J. Super. 147,
152 (App. Div. 2005)).
Thus, defendant had the right to redeem up until final judgment was
entered on the return date of the motion to enter final judgment. In these
circumstances, the court should inform the parties of the return date of the
motion. Granting oral argument would also inform the parties of the return date.
Because this issue was not raised until oral argument before us, we do not decide
the matter on that basis. See Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014). We
vacate final judgment because oral argument was not provided, nor a valid
reason given to deny argument. We do not reach defendant's argument regarding
the February 22, 2018 denial of its motion to vacate final judgment.
A-3572-17T4
8
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-3572-17T4
9