Opinion ID: 1530854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: adjective considerations

Text: Teaneck first contends that its notice of voluntary dismissal of that portion of the complaint concerning the properties in question should have been granted. R.S. 54:5-104.62 is said to command this result. That section provides that a plaintiff shall have the right to an order of dismissal as to any parcel of land proceeded against under the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act. The motion was presented after Harvey had filed his counterclaim and the latter insists that R.R. 4:42-1( b ) precludes the dismissal unless the counterclaim is susceptible of an independent adjudication. The counterclaim, in essence, seeks judgment entitling Harvey to redeem the properties, and Teaneck maintains an independent adjudication can be had. Without becoming involved in the procedural niceties urged by the parties, it is sufficient to note the unusual position in which Teaneck finds itself. The objective of the present action, so far as it concerns the properties which Harvey seeks to redeem by his counterclaim, appears to be an attempt by Teaneck to confirm the title acquired by the municipality in the prior foreclosure proceeding. The trial judge commented upon this subject thusly: While it has been stated by the township attorney in his brief that the second action was filed for the purpose of correcting the description of the lands in question, an examination of the two complaints discloses that the description of the lands in question in both of them is identical, and it is quite clear that the purpose sought to be achieved by the second action was to correct the error resulting from the failure to name the record owner in the first proceeding. (33 N.J. Super., supra, at page 611) Teaneck, when confronted with an adversary, sought to retrace its steps and rely solely upon the former decree as a bar to Harvey's attack. R.S. 54:5-104.62 contemplates a dismissal as to property after the complaint has been filed and prior to a final judgment but not as an adversary procedural tactic as sought to be employed by Teaneck. Teaneck considers R.S. 54:5-104.67 as a barrier to the attack on the prior judgment of foreclosure. That section limits the time within which an application may be entertained to reopen a judgment procured under the act to three months from the date of recording the judgment. Although the period has long since elapsed, Harvey seeks justification for his attack in Bonded Certificate Corp. v. Wildey, 137 N.J. Eq. 564 ( E. & A. 1946), where a final decree barring rights of redemption was reopened beyond the statutory limitation because of the wholly insufficient inquiry in determining the parties having an interest in the redemptive right. We do not consider that adjudication in point. It did not concern proceedings pursuant to the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act. Nor is it necessary to consider the effect of R.S. 54:5-104.67 in the light of Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N.J. 240 (1950), and R.R. 4:62-2, which provides for relief from final judgments. Nevertheless, we conceive Teaneck not to be in a position to urge the statutory limitation. Where a party voluntarily opens an investigation of matters which he might claim to be precluded by a prior judgment he is held to have waived his right to assert the benefit of the former adjudication and the case will be determined without regard therefor. Cooley v. Snake River Dist. Improvement Co., 78 Or. 384, 152 P. 1190 ( Sup. Ct. 1915); Dillard v. McKnight, 34 Cal. 2 d 209, 209 P. 2 d 387, 11 A.L.R. 2 d 835 ( Sup. Ct. 1949). See 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 597, p. 15.