Case Name: HERBERT HARVEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ORLAND PROPERTIES, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, AND FREDA SOLOMON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND PAT ROMANELLI AND SARA ROMANELLI, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1972-01-19
Citations: 118 N.J. Super. 104
Docket Number: 
Parties: HERBERT HARVEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ORLAND PROPERTIES, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, AND FREDA SOLOMON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND PAT ROMANELLI AND SARA ROMANELLI, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 104–106

Head Matter:
HERBERT HARVEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ORLAND PROPERTIES, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT, AND FREDA SOLOMON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND PAT ROMANELLI AND SARA ROMANELLI, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued November 9, 1971
Supplemental Briefs Filed December 13, 1971 and December 22, 1971
Decided January 19, 1972.
Before Judges Lewis, Kolovsky and Halpeen.
Mrs. Sylvia B. Pressler argued the cause for appellants Herbert Harvey and Ereda Solomon.
Mr. Walter J. Fessler argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Lum, Biunno & Tompkins, attorneys; Mr. James C. Orr, on original brief).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed essentially for the reasons expressed by Judge Lane.
We supplement Judge Lane's conclusions and affirm for two additional reasons. (1) Under the circumstances existing in this case, the final decree of foreclosure through which respondents derived their title is not open to collateral attack by appellants. Andes v. Boyajian, 12 N. J. Super. 344, 348 (Oh. 1951) and cases cited therein. (2) With full knowledge of the alleged deficiency in the final decree of foreclosure filed in 1963, appellants waited approximately five years before seeking relief. Such unexplained and unexcused delay in enforcing an alleged known right has resulted in prejudice to respondents who, in good faith and for value, purchased the property in question. Appellants are now estopped from obtaining relief. See Clark v. Judge, 84 N. J. Super. 35, 53 (Ch. 1964), aff'd 44 N. J. 550 (1965).
Affirmed.