SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 1822
- 16T2

PRO CAP II, L L C BY ITS CUST ODIAN 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, 201 8 Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. F - 00 1407
- 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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 forecl osure, Clearview Equities, LLC appeals from a final order denying its motion to redeem plaintiff Pro Cap II, LLC 's 1 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 th e judgment had yet to be recorded. W e agree and affirm.
The facts are undisputed and easily summarized. I n
Decem ber 2012 , t he tax collector of Middletown sold tax sale certificate 12
- 00411 on the property at 6 Koosman Drive to U S Bank/Cust Tower DBW II . The following December, the tax
collector sold tax sale certificate 13
- 003 1 4 to Pro Cap. In July 2015, DBWII assigned its certificate to Clearview. Following pre
- suit notice , which C learview 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 i n 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, 2 016 . Pro Cap served Clearview with the final judgment on August 17, 2016 , a nd 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 recor ding of a certified copy of the judgment, t he 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 acc ordance with any other statutory4 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 si mple 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 t he initial motion was deni ed, 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 requi red 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 rec ording of that judgment,
that gives " full and complete relief " barring " the right of redemption, " and "foreclos [ing] all prior or subsequent

a lienations 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 accompl ished by recording the judgment[,] N.J.S.A. 54:5
- 104.65. " I d. 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 wit h 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
P aramus 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 ref lect obligations imposed on municipalities , the only entiti es permitted to pursue in rem foreclosures prior to the 2015 statutory amendments permitting any person holding a tax lien on abandoned property to instit ute an in rem tax foreclosure. N.J.S.A. 54:5
- 86; L. 2015, c. 16. Affirmed.