JAMEEL KEARNEY VS. BECKER TERRACE, LLC (F-016241-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1054-20
JAMEEL KEARNEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BECKER TERRACE, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Submitted October 4, 2021 – Decided December 9, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Natali.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No.
F-016241-19.
Alsaidi & Chang, LLC, attorneys for appellant (Joseph
A. Chang, of counsel; Jeffrey Zajac, on the briefs).
Taylor and Keyser, LLC, attorneys for respondent
(Robert W. Keyser, of counsel; Jeffrey B. Datz, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
In this tax sale certificate foreclosure action, we consider defendant
Becker Terrace, LLC's (Becker) argument that the court abused its discretion in
denying a motion to vacate a default judgment under Rule 4:50-1. Because we
conclude Becker's failure to respond to the foreclosure proceedings was
excusable, and there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the residential
property Becker formerly owned was abandoned, we reverse.
I.
In 2018, Levi Rooz and his father, Sam Rooz, 1 formed Becker to purchase
29 Becker Terrace in the Township of Irvington as an investment property.
After Becker failed to pay its fourth quarter property taxes, Irvington held a sale
in December 2018 for those properties with unpaid municipal liens under
N.J.S.A. 54:5-19. Irvington acquired the property subject to Becker's right of
redemption. See N.J.S.A. 54:5-32.
At some point after the sale, Reinhardt Vilson, the Irvington housing
inspector, allegedly viewed the property and determined it was abandoned as
defined by the Abandoned Property Rehabilitation Act, N.J.S.A. 55:19-78 to -
107 (APRA). On March 7, 2019, Irvington published notice of the abandonment
1
We refer to Levi and Sam Rooz by their first names for ease of reference,
intending no disrespect.
A-1054-20
2
designation in the local newspaper, and Genia C. Philip, Irvington's Director of
the Department of Economic Development and Grants Oversight and its
Designated Abandoned Property Public Officer, sent a certified letter informing
Becker of that finding.
Levi received Philip's letter and further acknowledged he was notified of
the "abandonment issue" on February 22, 2019. Rather than pay Becker's
outstanding tax obligation, he instead applied for a construction permit on March
26, 2019, which Irvington granted on April 10, 2019, despite already having
deemed the property abandoned.
On April 9, 2019, Philip sent Becker notice that the tax lien certificate for
29 Becker Terrace would be sold at auction on May 21, 2019. After receiving
the notice, Becker administratively appealed the abandonment designation under
N.J.S.A. 55:19-55(e), and an Irvington official scheduled a hearing for May 8,
2019. After Becker's representative failed to appear at the hearing, the appeal
was dismissed. Becker also failed to file a summary proceeding in the Law
Division to challenge the adverse determination as permitted by N.J.S.A. 55:19-
55(f).
On May 15, 2019, Levi emailed Vilson and attached photos of a
construction permit and ongoing renovations at the property. He also certified
A-1054-20
3
that he visited Vilson and informed him of the construction, but Vilson allegedly
told Levi to pay the taxes in order to remove the property from the special tax
sale list for abandoned properties. After Becker failed to pay the outstanding
taxes, Irvington conducted a special tax sale where plaintiff Jameel Kearney was
the successful bidder.
On May 30, 2019, Levi filed a Superior Court action to eject a squatter
living at the property. He certified that at some point, his father permitted an
individual to live "at the property to ensure that [it] was not being broken into."
We discern from the record that the unnamed individual referenced refused to
leave the premises.
In a May 31, 2019 certification, Philip attested based on her "review of
township records" and of "the inspection report and photographs made by
[Vilson] from his visual inspection of the property," that it was abandoned under
the criteria enumerated in N.J.S.A. 55:19-81, including the threshold
requirement that the property "has not been legally occupied for a period of at
least six months prior to [May 31, 2019]."
Philip further stated that "construction was initiated on the property and
was discontinued prior to completion," and "no construction ha[d] taken place
for at least six months." She also certified that "at least one installment of
A-1054-20
4
property tax remains unpaid and delinquent," and "the property has been
determined to be a nuisance in accordance with section 5 of P.L. 2003, c. 210
(C.55:19-82)." She did not attach any supporting documents to her May 31
certification, however.
On August 29, 2019, plaintiff sent written notice by regular and certifi ed
mail to Becker's registered address in Rahway of his intention to institute a
foreclosure action to bar Becker's right of redemption, but Levi claimed neither
he nor his father received the correspondence. On October 2, 2019, plaintiff
filed a foreclosure complaint.
On January 3, 2020, plaintiff published notice of the foreclosure
proceedings in The Star Ledger and, on January 6, 2020, mailed notice by
certified and regular mail to Sam as Becker's registered agent at his Rahway
address. The certified mail was returned as undeliverable, but the regular mail
was never returned. Plaintiff also posted notice of the proceedings at the
Irvington property, at the Tax Collector's office, and at the Essex County
Register's office. Becker failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
In April 2020, Sam tragically died from COVID-19.
On June 3, 2020, Irvington's tax collector certified that a redemption of
the special tax sale certificate had not occurred within the required forty-five-
A-1054-20
5
day period. The trial court granted plaintiff's application for final judgment on
July 14, 2020, barring Becker's right of redemption and vesting plaintiff with
title to the property. Plaintiff mailed a copy of the final judgment to Becker on
July 21, 2020.
After receiving the judgment, Becker served Irvington with an Open
Public Records Act (OPRA) request on July 28, 2020. The request sought
information relating to all violation notices, inspection reports, notice of "any
tax sale or foreclosure" and records relating to the abandoned property
determination. Irvington responded to the OPRA request by informing Levi that
no responsive documents existed.
Less than a month later, on August 13, 2020, Becker filed a motion to
vacate the final judgment under Rule 4:50-1. After considering the parties'
submissions, which included two certifications with supporting documents from
Levi, the court denied Becker's application in a November 13, 2020 order.
In its accompanying oral opinion, the court found Becker clearly had
notice of the proceedings and plaintiff properly served the complaint consistent
with the Rules. The court acknowledged and summarily rejected Becker's
challenge to Irvington's abandonment designation, explaining that such a
determination is made by the municipality and Becker failed to appear at the
A-1054-20
6
scheduled appeal hearing. The court concluded Becker failed to establish its
right to relief under Rule 4:50-1 as it failed to "take the steps . . . necessary to
protect itself."
Becker raises two points on appeal. 2 First, it argues the court committed
error in failing to vacate the final judgment because plaintiff failed to take the
"additional constitutionally mandated steps to serve the complaint after learning
of the undelivered certified mail," rendering the final judgment void ab initio.
Second, he contends the court misapplied its discretion by failing to vacate the
month-old default judgment under Rule 4:50-1(c) and (f) in the face of its
allegations of excusable neglect and a meritorious defense. 3
With respect to its second argument, Becker maintains that the final
judgment was grounded upon the factually unsupported determination that the
property was abandoned, thereby "creat[ing] a defective foundation for the
subsequent foreclosure action." Becker stresses that Irvington incorrectly
categorized the property as vacant, falsely asserted that construction at the
2
We have reorganized Becker's arguments for purposes of clarity.
3
We consider defendant's arguments under Rule 4:50-1(a) and (f), despite its
reliance on subsection (c), as that provision addresses instances when a final
judgment was improperly entered based on claims of fraud or misrepresentation,
which are neither asserted nor present here. We also consider Becker's
contentions under subsections (a) and (f), as its merits arguments clearly relate
to those two subsections.
A-1054-20
7
property had been discontinued, and failed to provide any of the inspection
records referenced in the Philip certification.
We have considered Becker's first point concerning service and determine
it is of insufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11–
3(e)(1)(E). We agree, however, with Becker's second contention and determine
the court erred in failing to vacate the final judgment, considering the factual
disputes in the record regarding Irvington's abandonment designation. Finally,
we conclude Becker's failure to respond to the complaint was excusable under
the circumstances.
II.
We review a court's determination under Rule 4:50-1 for an abuse of
discretion. Hous. Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994). Rule
4:50-1 states "the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . for the
following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . .
(d) the judgment or order is void; . . . or (f) any other reason justifying relief
from the operation of the judgment or order." "The rule is 'designed to reconcile
the strong interests in finality of judgments and judicial efficiency with the
equitable notion that courts should have authority to avoid an unjust result in
A-1054-20
8
any given case.'" U.S. Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
In the context of a default judgment "[a] court should view 'the opening
of default judgments . . . with great liberality,' and should tolerate 'every
reasonable ground for indulgence . . . to the end that a just result is reached.'"
Mancini v. EDS ex rel N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 132 N.J. 330,
334 (1993) (quoting Marder v. Realty Constr. Co., 84 N.J. Super. 313, 319 (App.
Div. 1964)). "In the tax sale certificate foreclosure context considerations of
public policy and equity are also taken into account." M&D Assocs. v. Mandara,
366 N.J. Super. 341, 350 (App. Div. 2004).
Rule 4:50-1(a) requires a showing of excusable neglect and a meritorious
defense. Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 468. "'Excusable neglect' may be found when
the default was 'attributable to an honest mistake that is compatible with due
diligence or reasonable prudence.'" Ibid. (quoting Mancini, 132 N.J. at 335).
With respect to Rule 4:50-1(f), the Supreme Court stated: "'No
categorization can be made of the situations which would warrant redress under
[that subsection]. [T]he very essence of [subsection] (f) is its capacity for relief
in exceptional situations. And in such exceptional cases its boundaries are as
expansive as the need to achieve equity and justice.'" DEG, LLC v. Twp. of
A-1054-20
9
Fairfield, 198 N.J. 242, 269-70 (2009) (quoting Court Inv. Co. v. Perillo, 48 N.J.
334, 341 (1966)) (second alteration in original). We have stated that "general
equitable principles . . . apply to the remedy of foreclosure. Foreclosure is a
harsh remedy and equity abhors a forfeiture. A court of equity may invoke its
inherent equitable powers to avoid a forfeiture and deny the remedy of
foreclosure." Sovereign Bank v. Kuelzow, 297 N.J. Super. 187, 198 (App. Div.
1997) (citation omitted).
APRA is intended as a tool for local governments to rehabilitate
abandoned properties, avoid blight and declining property values, see N.J.S.A.
55:19-79, and designate properties as abandoned and set them aside for special
tax sales. N.J.S.A. 55:19-101. Under APRA, successful bidders of property
sold at a special tax sale must immediately move to foreclose on the property in
order to bar the owner's statutory right of redemption. N.J.S.A. 55:19-86(a)-(b).
The Act also requires notice to the property owner "[a]t least 30 days before
filing the complaint" that "inform[s] the owner and interested parties . . . of those
criteria that led to a determination of abandonment." Ibid.APRA also sets forth the criteria for an "abandoned" designation. "[A]ny
property that has not been legally occupied for a period of six months" will be
deemed abandoned if it meets at least one of four additional criteria. N.J.S.A.
A-1054-20
10
55:19-81. A squatter or trespasser, however, will not qualify as a "legal
occupier" of the property. See State v. Linton, 356 N.J. Super. 255, 259 (App.
Div. 2002) (finding that a squatter had no constitutionally reasonable
expectation of privacy where they had no legal right to occupy abandoned
property). If the threshold occupancy requirement is met, the municipality must
also show one of four elements:
a. [t]he property is in need of rehabilitation in the
reasonable judgment of the public officer, and no
rehabilitation has taken place during that six-month
period; b. [c]onstruction was initiated on the property
and was discontinued . . . ; c. [a]t least one installment
of property tax remains unpaid and delinquent . . . ; or
d. The property has been determined to be a nuisance.
[N.J.S.A. 55:19-81(a)-(d) (emphasis added).]
Once an abandoned designation has been made, the purchaser of the tax
sale certificate may commence a foreclosure proceeding, but the abandoned
property owner may redeem his rights at any time, subject to court order.
N.J.S.A. 54:19–58 ("After the foreclosure action is instituted, the right to
redeem shall exist and continue to exist until barred by the judgment of the
Superior Court."). A tax sale certificate "creates only a lien on the premises"
and it is "not an outright conveyance;" it conveys the lien interest of the taxing
authority. Town of Phillipsburg v. Block 1508, Lot 12, 380 N.J. Super. 159,
A-1054-20
11
163 (App. Div. 2005). Additionally, the "interest of the holder of the tax sale
certificate is entirely subordinate to the statutory right of redemption of the
property owner." Id. at 164 (citing Manning v. Kasdin, 97 N.J. Super. 406, 417,
(App. Div. 1967)).
Applying these principles, we conclude the court misapplied its discretion
in denying Becker's motion. The propriety of Irvington's abandonment
designation was a critical and necessary determination for the court to make as
it necessarily informs whether vacating the default judgment was appropriate
under Rule 4:50-1. This is so because the holder of a tax sale certificate—like
plaintiff—has no right to foreclose sooner than two years from the certificate's
acquisition unless the property is abandoned within the meaning of APRA, in
which case the foreclosure action may be commenced "any time" after the
certificate's acquisition. See N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(a)-(b). As plaintiff commenced
this action sooner than two years based on Irvington's abandonment designation,
that finding was of critical import.
Here, Philip possessed no firsthand knowledge of the condition of the
property, nor whether any individual legally occupied the premises in the six
months preceding the abandonment designation or the foreclosure proceedings.
See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 599 (App. Div.
A-1054-20
12
2011) ("A certification will support the grant of summary judgment only if the
material facts alleged therein are based, as required by Rule 1:6–6, on 'personal
knowledge.'") (quoting Claypotch v. Hesller, Inc., 360 N.J. Super. 472, 289
(App. Div. 2003)). Her conclusion that the property was abandoned was based
entirely on certain unidentified records, and those prepared by Vilson. Further,
she never appended to her certification the referenced and unauthenticated
documents that supported those conclusions, nor were they submitted to the
court for its consideration.
These deficiencies were not inconsequential. Indeed, while Becker's
failure to pay its taxes was conceded, the remaining facts supporting the
abandonment designation were not. For example, as noted, a threshold
requirement before a property is deemed abandoned under N.J.S.A. 55:19-81 is
the absence of proof that it was lawfully occupied for six months. Although
Philip so certified, again without appending any supporting records or firsthand
knowledge, Levi attested that before commencing the ejectment proceeding, his
father had "someone living at the property" to ensure it was not vandalized.
While he later successfully ejected the individual as an unauthorized "squatter,"
his certification can fairly be read to support the conclusion that the squatter, or
another unidentified individual, was lawfully residing in the residence at some
A-1054-20
13
period during the relevant six-month period before Philip certified the property
as abandoned.
Second, contrary to Philip's attestations that construction at the property
was "discontinued" and "no construction has taken place for at least six months,"
Levi presented competent proofs that a construction permit was issued by
Irvington on April 10, 2019, less than two months prior to Philip's certification.
Levi also submitted additional proofs showing extensive work at the residence.
Further, without appending supporting documentation to her certification,
and specifically those which memorialized Vilson's observations from his
inspection, we cannot discern how Philip or Vilson knew the property had not
been legally occupied for the six months prior to the certification, or any other
fact that would support the abandonment determination except for Becker's
failure to pay the required taxes.
We also cannot determine if the materials relied upon by Philip were
appropriate business records under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6), and particularly if they
were made "at or near the time of the observation by a person with actual
knowledge or from information supplied by such a person," or if the referenced
documents were "made in the regular course of business." That, of course, was
not the fault of Becker, as it disputed critical factual statements regarding
A-1054-20
14
Irvington's abandonment designation made in Philip's certification after making
timely OPRA requests and being informed that no such documents existed
related to that finding.
We, of course, draw no conclusions on the abandonment issue except to
observe the presence of genuine factual disputes that should be litigated and
adjudicated. Becker has demonstrated a meritorious defense under Rule 4:50-
1(a) and (f), not only because of Levi's own affirmative allegations about the
property but also because of the inadequacies in the Philip certification.
We are also satisfied that Levi provided sufficient reasons for failing to
file a timely answer or otherwise participate in the foreclosure proceedings.
Approximately three months after service of the complaint, his father and
partner in Becker, died from COVID-19 after being sick for "some time" prior.
Levi also verified that his mother cared for Sam at their residence in Brooklyn
before his death, and out of caution during the pandemic, he did not return to
New Jersey. Levi stated that Sam's illness meant "normal business practices"
were not followed and the "office was not being visited normally" during this
time period.
While Becker could, and should have, participated in the permissive
proceeding spelled out in N.J.S.A. 55:19-55(e)-(f), which likely would have
A-1054-20
15
avoided the default judgment in the first instance, we do not consider that failure
to be a dispositive jurisdictional defect as plaintiff argues, and are satisfied that
Becker's failure to answer the complaint, or otherwise respond, was excusable.
That conclusion is supported by the unique circumstances presented which
include Sam's death, Becker's filing of a motion to vacate less than a month after
the entry of judgment, and, as noted, the absence of a competent certification
supporting the abandonment determination, coupled with Irvington's subsequent
denial that any documents related to that designation existed. See, e.g., BV001
Reo Blocker, LLC v. 53 W. Somerset St. Props., LLC, 467 N.J. Super. 117, 128-
30 (App. Div. 2021).
In sum, we conclude the court mistakenly failed to "view with great
liberality," see Mancini, 132 N.J. at 334, Becker's reasonable arguments
regarding both its claim of excusable neglect and its meritorious defense. We
accordingly reverse the court's decision to deny the motion to vacate the default
judgment and remand the matter for entry of an order granting Becker leave to
file a pleading responsive to the complaint and for necessary proceedings to
resolve this foreclosure action. The final judgment is consequently vacated,
effective immediately, without prejudice to the outcome of the remanded
proceedings.
A-1054-20
16
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-1054-20
17