Case ID: nj-eq_133/html/0069-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bigelow, V. C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Docket 138/624
    Henry Taylor, complainant, v. Hattie M. Smith et al., defendants.
    [Decided January 25th, 1943.]
    
      Messrs. Brunetto cG Welsh, for the complainant.
    
      Mr. Oliver Randolph, for the defendants.
   Bigelow, V. C.

This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage dated May 12th, 1941, made bjr John Ravannah to Ruth Schwartzberg to secure <$375. The mortgage was assigned to complainant June 10th, 1942. Erom the date of the mortgage to the present time the mortgagee or her assignee through attorneys, has collected the rents of the mortgaged premises. The amount due on the mortgage. is dependent on the accounting for the rents. I will state the account in two parts — from the date of the mortgage to the assignment and from the assignment to the present time.

Principal sum ...................................... $375.00

Interest to May 12, 1942 ............................ 14.09

Taxes paid May 9, 1942 ............................ 188.82

Interest on taxes to May 12, 1942 .................... .09

$578.00

$573.50 Rents collected for .Schwartzberg........

$28.67 Rent commission ....................

56.33 Repairs .............................

7.50 Insurance ...........................

258.00 Paid Ravannah .....................

- 350.50

..............■ 223.00 Balance applied to mortgage ............

Balance due on mortgage June 10/42 . ................ $355.00

Interest from May 12/42 to Jan. 12/43 ................. 12.00

Total ................................... $367.00

Rents collected for Taylor ................... $187.00

Rént commission ..............-...... $9.35

Rci airs ............................. 50.00

•-— 59.35

Balance applied to mortgage ........................... 127.65

Balance -due on mortgage Jan. 12/43 ................. $239.35

(Rents collected since hearing, Jan. 4/43, should be deducted.)

Four items shown in the account presented by complainant have been disallowed and not included above: Payment to Ravannah of $25, May 17th, 1941, appears.from his receipt to be a part of the principal sum of $375. Ravannah is charged with $26 in October and the same sum in November. He is also charged with a personal loan of $10 in November and again in January. In each instance there is supporting data for only one payment.

' The principal item omitted is the tax sale certificate bought by Mrs. Schwartzberg October 29th, 1941,'for $116.25. This is a lien on the property independent of the mortgage. It does' hot appear to have been assigned to complainant: If thé premises are sold in the foreclosure shit in the present siáte of the record the' purchaser will' take subject to this lien, and to protect himself will have to pay it. It would be inequitable therefore to include it in the money due on the mortgage. If, however, it has been assigned to complainant so that he is in a position to cancel it, then the amount paid for the tax certificate with interest may be added to the account above stated.

In view of the fact that each party has prevailed in part on the account, no counsel fee will be allowed complainant beyond that allowed in uncontested cases.

Taxed costs will be taxed at half the usual amount. R. S. 2:65-29. Included in the costs may be a search fee of $22.23, half of the sum shown in the affidavit annexed to the search.