SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1822-16T2

PRO CAP II, LLC BY ITS 

CUSTODIAN U.S. BANK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BLOCK 682, LOT 49, 6 KOOSMAN

DRIVE, MIDDLETOWN, NEW JERSEY,

ASSESSED TO: JOHN S. DENKER,

single,

Defendant,

and 

CLEARVIEW EQUITIES, LLC, 

Appellant.

_______________________________

Argued March 12, 2018 – Decided June 11, 2018

Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket 

No. F-001407-16.

Richard O. Venino, Jr., argued the cause for 

appellant.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-1822-16T2

Amber J. Monroe argued the cause for 

respondent (Gary C. Zeitz, LLC, attorneys; 

Amber J. Monroe, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this in rem tax foreclosure, Clearview Equities, LLC

appeals from a final order denying its motion to redeem 

plaintiff Pro Cap II, LLC's1 subsequent tax sale certificate. 

The Chancery judge found the motion came too late, after

Clearview's right of redemption had already been cut off by Pro 

Cap's judgment in foreclosure, notwithstanding the judgment had 

yet to be recorded. We agree and affirm.

The facts are undisputed and easily summarized. In 

December 2012, the tax collector of Middletown sold tax sale 

certificate 12-00411 on the property at 6 Koosman Drive to US 

Bank/Cust Tower DBW II. The following December, the tax 

collector sold tax sale certificate 13-00314 to Pro Cap. In 

July 2015, DBWII assigned its certificate to Clearview.

Following pre-suit notice, which Clearview admits it 

received, Pro Cap filed a verified complaint in rem to foreclose

its tax lien in January 2016. The following month, the Chancery 

 

1 Pro Cap assigned its certificate to PCII REO LLC in May 2016, 

and the Chancery judge thereafter granted Pro Cap's motion to 

substitute PCII as plaintiff in the action. We follow the 

parties in continuing to refer to Pro Cap as plaintiff in this 

matter for ease of reference only.
3 A-1822-16T2

judge granted Pro Cap's motion declaring the property abandoned. 

When Clearview failed to answer following service of the 

complaint, Pro Cap entered default against it in June 2016. 

Final judgment was entered on July 5, 2016. Pro Cap served 

Clearview with the final judgment on August 17, 2016, and it was 

recorded nine days later.

On August 22, a representative of Clearview appeared at the 

tax collector's office attempting to redeem Pro Cap's tax sale 

certificate, which the tax collector refused in light of the 

judgment debarring redemption. Clearview subsequently filed a

motion contending its request to redeem was timely pursuant to 

N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.65 because Pro Cap had not yet recorded its 

judgment.

Judge Del Bueno Cleary denied the motion. Acknowledging 

that N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.65 provides "the plaintiff shall be 

seized of an estate in fee simple . . . absolute and free and 

clear of all liens and encumbrances" upon the recording of a 

certified copy of the judgment, the judge found it provided 

Clearview no right to relief. Instead, the judge found N.J.S.A. 

54:5-104.64(a) makes clear it is the entry of the judgment that 

gives 

full and complete relief, in accordance with 

the provisions of [the Tax Lien Law], and in 

accordance with any other statutory 
4 A-1822-16T2

authority, to bar the right of redemption, 

and to foreclose all prior or subsequent 

alienations and descents of the lands and 

encumbrances thereon, and to adjudge an 

absolute and indefeasible estate of 

inheritance in fee simple in the lands 

therein described, to be vested in the 

plaintiff.

[N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.64(a).]

Clearview moved for reconsideration and to reopen the

judgment under R. 4:50-1(d), rearguing the same points and 

adding that the judgment was void because the complaint was not 

verified by the tax collector and no tax foreclosure list had 

been prepared by the tax collector pursuant to resolution of the 

Township governing body. The judge denied reconsideration for 

the same reasons the initial motion was denied, determined the 

lack of verification by the tax collector was not fatal pursuant 

to Preparatory Temple and House of Prayer for All People, Inc. 

v. Seery, 81 N.J. Super. 429 (Ch. Div. 1963), and that 

plaintiff, obviously not a municipality, was not required to 

comply with N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.35. Plaintiff appeals, reprising 

the arguments made to the Chancery court.

Our review of the record convinces us that none of 

plaintiff's arguments is of sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
5 A-1822-16T2

N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.64(a) could not be clearer: it is the 

entry of final judgment, not the recording of that judgment, 

that gives "full and complete relief" barring "the right of 

redemption," and "foreclos[ing] all prior or subsequent 

alienations and descents of the lands and encumbrances thereon" 

and "adjudg[ing] an absolute and indefeasible estate of 

inheritance in fee simple in the lands therein described, to be 

vested in the plaintiff." As Judge Wecker cogently explained in 

Town of Phillipsburg v. Block 1508, Lot 12, 380 N.J. Super. 159, 

165 (App. Div. 2005), "[t]he holder of a prior tax sale 

certificate has an absolute right of redemption until that right 

is cut off by a judgment in foreclosure." " N.J.S.A. 54:5-

104.64(a) provides that such judgment 'shall give full and 

complete relief . . . to bar the right of redemption, and to 

foreclose all prior or subsequent . . . encumbrances' and grant 

an estate in fee simple to the plaintiff, which is accomplished 

by recording the judgment[,] N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.65." Id. at 166.

That is precisely what occurred here. Clearview, the 

holder of a tax sale certificate that pre-dated Pro Cap's

certificate, had an absolute right to redeem Pro Cap's 

certificate until that right was cut off by the July 5, 2016 

final judgment. That Pro Cap was required to perfect its estate 

in fee simple by recording that judgment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 
6 A-1822-16T2

54:5-104.65, does not alter the effect of the judgment as to 

Clearview. 

We agree with Judge Del Bueno Cleary that the alleged 

procedural defects, improper verification and failure to prepare 

the Township resolution and tax foreclosure list, have not been 

found to invalidate an entire in rem proceeding. See Borough of 

Paramus v. Block 1527, Lots 1-2, etc., 42 N.J. Super. 369, 375 

(App. Div. 1956); Preparatory Temple, 81 N.J. Super. at 432-34. 

Further, it is obvious that the two requirements of which 

Clearview complains both reflect obligations imposed on 

municipalities, the only entities permitted to pursue in rem 

foreclosures prior to the 2015 statutory amendments permitting 

any person holding a tax lien on abandoned property to institute 

an in rem tax foreclosure. N.J.S.A. 54:5-86; L. 2015, c. 16.

Affirmed.