[brief] *Id.* at 261-64.  Equitable factors to be considered in a trial court’s determination of whether to grant a mortgagee’s application for postjudgment interest at the contract rate include “whether there was a commercial foreclosure, the contract rate is higher than the legal rate, the mortgagee is over-secured because the mortgagor has sufficient equity in the secured property to pay the principal due and the contract rate, and there is some prejudicial delay”, which, when combined, favor the contract rate; and whether “plaintiff submitted the final judgment of foreclosure that expressly provided for the contract default rate only until entry of judgment, and for post-the judgment interest at the legal rate”, whether plaintiff did not immediately challenge the judgment or move to modify or correct the postjudgment interest rate in the judgment\(^1\), and whether plaintiff’s delay effected the timing of defendant’s objection, all of which favor the legal rate.  *Avatar*, 2022 WL 1495919, at *6-7 (citing *Interchange*).  This list is not exhaustive.  The trial court must consider any and all equities supported by the evidence.  *Id.* at *7.  Here, the equitable factors weighing in favor of the legal rate are the absence of any evidence that [...] is over-secured;\(^2\) plaintiff requested that the postjudgment interest rate be lawful interest, not the contract interest; plaintiff did --- \(^1\)  Notably, unlike the plaintiff in *Avatar*, plaintiff here never made such a motion.  \(^2\)  Had the [...] Defendants had an opportunity to address this issue before [...], they would have provided proof that [...] was under-secured. not immediately challenge the lawful interest rate award in the judgment; and there was no need for the [...] Defendants to object to plaintiff’s motion to enter the judgment on postjudgment interest rate grounds because plaintiff did not request contract postjudgment interest in either of its motions for the entry of a foreclosure judgment.  To reiterate, “where a court determines to award post-judgment interest under Rule 4:42-11(a) at a rate different than the legal rate, the court must consider and weigh the equities. ”  *Avatar*, at *7* (emphasis added).  And, like the trial court in *Avatar* which “abused its discretion by not fully doing so”, *id.*, [...] abused her discretion by not weighing the equities at all.  Accordingly, plaintiff’s reliance on the [...] Defendants’ exercise of their rights to seek sale adjournments, their requests for payoff statements, and their applications for stays of the delivery of the deed, *see* Pb14-15, are misplaced.  These have not been recognized as considerations in the weighing of the equities and, as previously noted, [...] did not engage in any such weighing whatsoever.  Finally, plaintiff’s reliance on the [...] Defendants’ withdrawal of their objections to its motion for the entry of the foreclosure judgment is misplaced, *see* Pb16, because, as previously noted, plaintiff expressly sought post-mortgage foreclosure judgment interest at the lawful rate, not the contract rate.  Therefore, since their objections were based on other grounds, the [...] Defendants had no reason to object to the lawful interest rate expressly sought by plaintiff in both motions.  III.