Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Sonderman v. Remington Const. Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 2, 1992Published

1ConcurrenceStein, J.

I write separately because the Court’s conclusion in Part IV is not essential to the disposition of this case. In my view, the municipality’s failure to give notice to Remington of the in rem tax-foreclosure judgment, combined with Remington’s timely and successful effort to vacate the judgment, precludes the municipality from passing any interest to Sonderman.

Although the majority rightly concludes that the municipality’s foreclosure judgment was void for lack of proper service, it nevertheless treats that void judgment as though a bona fide purchaser could potentially acquire title under…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Raniere v. I & M INVESTMENTS INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  2. Noble v. KahnSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
  3. GARZA EX REL. FINO v. PaoneNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957
  4. Raniere v. I & M INVESTMENTS, INC.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1980
  5. Sprang v. Petersen Lumber, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API