Court Opinion

ID: 9927573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-29 15:06:51.873586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:36.006878
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1287-22

TRYSTONE CAPITAL
ASSETS, LLC,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DOROTHY T. TOULSON,
THOMAS W. TOULSON,
DEBORAH W. GRISCOM,
as Executor of the Estate of
DOROTHY T. TOULSON, LIVE
WELL FINANCIAL, INC., UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, SOUTH
JERSEY GAS, and THE STATE OF
NEW JERSEY,

          Defendants,

and

ALLOWAY VENTURES, LLC,
RED CAT PROPERTY RESCUE,
LLC, and MECUM TOULSON, LLC,

     Third-Party Defendants-
     Respondents.
_________________________________
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY, FSB, not individually but
solely as trustee for Finance of
America Structured Securities
Acquisition Trust 2019-HB1,

     Intervenor-Appellant.
_________________________________

            Submitted January 16, 2024 – Decided January 29, 2024

            Before Judges Chase and Vinci.

            On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Chancery Division, Salem County, Docket No.
            F-3794-21.

            Ashley S. Miller (Akerman LLP), attorney for
            intervenor-appellant.

            Honig & Greenberg LLC, attorneys for respondents,
            Alloway Ventures, LLC, Red Cat Property Rescue,
            LLC, and Mecum Toulson, LLC (Adam D. Greenberg,
            on the brief).

            Anthony Louis Velasquez, attorney for respondent
            Trystone Capital Assets, LLC.

PER CURIAM

      Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB ("Wilmington"), appeals the

October 18, 2022 denial of its motion to set aside a sheriff's sale and December

9, 2022 denial of its motion for reconsideration. Because the trial court correctly

applied the doctrine of laches, we affirm.

                                                                             A-1287-22
                                        2
                                          I.

      In 2011, Dorothy T. Toulson secured a line-of-credit mortgage on her

home at 33 Market Street in Salem ("the property") through a note to Genworth

Financial Home Equity Access, Inc. ("Genworth"), in the amount of $165,000.

To secure payment of the note, Toulson entered into a reverse mortgage with

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), and conveyed the

property to Genworth. The mortgage was properly recorded, and MERS, as

nominee for Genworth, was named the mortgagee.

      Toulson passed away in 2016 and defaulted on the mortgage loan. MERS

assigned the defaulted mortgage to Live Well Financial, Inc. ("Live Well"). The

assignment was properly recorded. Live Well filed a foreclosure complaint in

September 2017.

      In February 2018, the Tax Collector of the City of Salem commenced a

public tax sale of the property for unpaid 2018 taxes. The tax sale certificate

was sold and assigned to Trystone Capital Assets, LLC ("Trystone"), which

properly recorded it.

                                                                         A-1287-22
                                      3
      After Trystone recorded the tax sale, Live Well recorded a lis pendens at

the end of July 2018.1 Live Well then filed a second amended complaint. Live

Well's mortgage foreclosure was dismissed in April 2019 but reinstated in June

2020 upon motion. Separately, Live Well filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the

District of Delaware in June 2019. Although N.J.S.A. 46:16-4.1 permitted Live

Well to record its bankruptcy in the land records, it did not do so.

      No redemption of the tax lien was made within two years. As such, in

April 2021, Trystone ordered a title search and mailed notices of intent to

foreclose. The title search had a "board date" of March 20, 2021, meaning it

reflected documents recorded only through that date. Trystone then served Live

Well with a thirty-day pre-foreclosure notice on June 14, 2021, pursuant to Rule

4:42-9(a)(5).

      After being served with Trystone's pre-foreclosure notice, Live Well

assigned the mortgage it held to Wilmington, which recorded it on June 15,

2021. However, Wilmington did not immediately substitute in on Live Well's

reinstated mortgage foreclosure action.

1
  Rule 4:64-1(a)(1) required Live Well to "receive and review a title search of
the public record" to identify others with interest in the property. Although the
record is devoid of any mention of the search or the required certification of
compliance, Live Well would have been on constructive notice of the tax
foreclosure if they complied with the Rule.
                                                                           A-1287-22
                                          4
      Trystone filed its tax foreclosure complaint on July 21, 2021, after the

required thirty-day notice period lapsed. The foreclosure complaint named Live

Well, not Wilmington, as the holder of the mortgage. Trystone filed its lis

pendens, which was recorded on July 22, 2021. It then conducted a rundown

search, which did not reflect Live Well's assignment of the mortgage to

Wilmington. On August 9, 2021, Wilmington substituted in for Live Well in

the mortgage foreclosure action.

      Trystone's tax foreclosure proceeded, and a final judgment was entered in

Trystone's favor. A writ of execution was issued on October 14, 2021.

      In December 2021, a sheriff's sale took place and resulted in the sale of

the property to a successful bidder for $23,000.2 The successful bidder at the

sheriff's sale was Andrew Dunlop who then assigned his bid to his LLCs:

Alloway Ventures, LLC, and Red Cat Property Rescue, LLC (collectively

"Alloway"). Subsequently, a sheriff's deed was issued and recorded by Alloway.

      On December 29, 2021, Alloway took possession of the dilapidated

property and started a substantial rehabilitation project. The property had been

abandoned and vacant for years, was littered with trash throughout, and had been

2
  Typically, the tax foreclosure initiated by Trystone would have ended at final
judgment vesting title. However, because of a federal lien, the case was required
to go to sheriff's sale.
                                                                           A-1287-22
                                       5
damaged by fire. The interior ceilings had collapsed, the pipes had frozen and

burst, and the wood floors were extensively damaged. Alloway fully restored

the property to its current state as a historic late-1800s building. The restoration

cost approximately $150,000.

      Simultaneously, in December 2021, Wilmington filed another motion in

the mortgage foreclosure action to correct the plaintiff's name. That second

substitution order was entered January 5, 2022.        Wilmington then filed an

amended complaint.

      Wilmington finally obtained foreclosure judgment on January 26, 2022.

When Wilmington requested its own sheriff's sale of the property on February

17, 2022, it learned of the previous sheriff's sale.

      Wilmington's counsel then emailed Trystone's counsel advising Live Well

assigned the mortgage to Wilmington, which was recorded prior to the filing of

Trystone's tax foreclosure complaint, and Trystone's tax foreclosure complaint

failed to name Wilmington. Trystone's attorney responded that neither the title

search nor the rundown search showed an assignment from Live Well to

Wilmington, that the property was sold at sheriff's sale in December 2021, and

that the real party in interest was now the successful bidder, Alloway. Trystone

further provided Wilmington's counsel with Alloway's full contact information.

                                                                              A-1287-22
                                         6
However, neither Wilmington nor any of its representatives ever contacted

Alloway.

      Wilmington then filed a motion to intervene in the Trystone tax

foreclosure matter on May 3, 2022, which was granted on June 10, 2022.

Wilmington thereafter moved to set aside the sheriff's sale on June 22, 2022.

The trial court denied the motion on October 18, 2022. The trial court denied a

subsequent motion for reconsideration on December 9, 2022. 3

      The trial judge first opined Trystone's title search did not reveal

Wilmington's assignment because the cover page of the document recording the

assignment left the municipality, block, lot, and property address blank.

Because this information was missing, the trial judge determined Wilmington' s

recording was not completed sufficiently.

      However, the crux of the trial judge's opinion was the equitable principle

of laches. Specifically, the trial judge determined, "Wilmington had significant

time to intervene in this matter and to assert [its] rights, but waited

approximately [four] months to do so." During that time, Alloway, "in good

3
   Although the motion for reconsideration was mentioned in Wilmington's
notice of appeal, it was not briefed. An issue not briefed is waived on appeal.
Miller v. Reis, 189 N.J. Super. 437, 441 (App. Div. 1983) (issue not briefed
beyond conclusory statements need not be addressed).

                                                                          A-1287-22
                                       7
faith, continued to make significant improvements to the property and continued

to pay property taxes." Ultimately, the trial judge found Wilmington's delay in

intervening and moving to vacate the sheriff's sale "inexcusable," and declined

to set aside the sale.

       In its reconsideration opinion, the trial court recognized that Wilmington

claimed there was a two-month and three-day delay4 between Wilmington

learning of the sheriff's sale and filing a motion to vacate the sale on June 22,

2022. Noting that Wilmington learned of the sheriff's sale on February 17, 2022,

the court found Wilmington's seventy-five-day delay did not "warrant

reconsideration as the reasoning in the [c]ourt's [o]pinion remain[ed]

consistent . . . ."

       The trial judge addressed Wilmington's argument that the assignment of

the mortgage was properly recorded and adequately indexed. Citing its previous

opinion, the trial judge explained that according to the exhibits, Wilmington did

not include the property address, lot, block, or municipality on the cover sheet.

Because Wilmington did not provide any documentation in support of the

mortgage being properly recorded and indexed, the court found the motion for

4
   The court also recognized its previous description of the delay as being
"approximately four-month[s]" was incorrect, although not determinative in its
decision.
                                                                           A-1287-22
                                        8
"[r]econsideration adds nothing new and leaves the [c]ourt to make a

determination on an argument that is already decided."

                                       II.

      We review an order granting or denying a motion to vacate a sheriff's sale

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502-503 (2008).

We will find an abuse of discretion "when a decision is 'made without a rational

explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an

impermissible basis.'" U.S. Nat'l Bank Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467

(2012) (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2010)).

Whether a motion for relief has been timely made "rests in the sound discretion

of the trial court, equitable principles constituting the guide." Last v. Audubon

Park Assocs., 227 N.J. Super. 602, 607 (App. Div. 1988) (internal citations

omitted). We review an order denying reconsideration under the same abuse of

discretion standard. Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment, 440

N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015).

      In DelVecchio v. Hemberger, 388 N.J. Super. 179 (App. Div. 2006), we

reviewed a motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure. We stated:

            Our consideration of the arguments raised is governed
            by the principle that "[t]he decision whether to vacate a
            judgment on one of the six specified grounds [of Rule
            4:50-1] is a determination left to the sound discretion

                                                                           A-1287-22
                                         9
            of the trial court, guided by principles of equity" and
            that decision must be left undisturbed unless a clear
            abuse of discretion appears.

            [Id. at 187-88 (alterations in original) (quoting F.B. v.
            A.L.G., 176 N.J. 201, 207 (2003)) (citing Hous. Auth.
            of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274, 283 (1994)).]

We then concluded that despite the tragic circumstances of that case, where the

death of a child caused the financial downward spiral of owners who sought to

redeem too late, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying the

principles of equity and declining to vacate the tax foreclosure judgment.

                                       III.

      Wilmington believes the sheriff's sale must be vacated for two reasons.

First, it contends Trystone did not follow the statutory requirements of Rule

4:65-2. Second, Wilmington maintains equity warrants the vacatur.

                                        A.

      Rule 4:65-2 requires a plaintiff to serve notice of a foreclosure sale on

every person holding an ownership or lien interest to be divested by the sale and

is recorded in the appropriate office. Wilmington argues despite having a lien

interest at the time of the sale, the trial court incorrectly found errors with the

recording of the mortgage assignment and excused the lack of notice.

Wilmington contends N.J.S.A. 46:26A-3, governing prerequisites for recording,

                                                                             A-1287-22
                                       10
does not require a mortgage assignment to include the municipality, block, and

lot numbers. Rather, it contends N.J.S.A. 46:26A-3(a)(6) requires only that

mortgage assignments state the book and page number or document number of

the mortgage to which the assignment relates.

      Further, Wilmington suggests the assignment's absence from Trystone's

title report is "irrelevant" because Trystone and Alloway were charged with

notice of the assignment, given that Wilmington's interest was recorded prior to

the filing of Trystone's tax foreclosure action and the sheriff's sale to Alloway.

Ultimately, Wilmington maintains its mortgage interests should be unaffected

because it was not given notice of the sale or foreclosure.

      Rule 4:65-2 governs notice of a public sale and requires "notice of the

sale . . . be posted in the office of the sheriff of the county . . . where the

property is located, and also, in the case of real property, on the premises to be

sold . . . ." In addition, "at least [ten] days prior to the date set for sale, [the

party obtaining the order or writ shall] serve a notice of sale by registered or

certified mail, return receipt requested," on "every party who has appeared in

the action[,]" the "owner of record[,]" and except in mortgage foreclosures,

every other person with recorded ownership or lien interests. Ibid. A party

objecting to a sheriff's sale must have a valid basis for the objection, such as

                                                                              A-1287-22
                                        11
"fraud, accident, surprise, irregularity, or impropriety in the sheriff's sale."

Brookshire Equities, LLC v. Montaquiza, 346 N.J. Super. 310, 317 (App. Div.

2002) (citing Orange Land Co. v. Bender, 96 N.J. Super. 158, 164 (App. Div.

1967)).

      Under N.J.S.A. 46:26A-3(a):

            A document satisfies the prerequisites for recording . . .
            (6) if the document is an assignment, release or
            satisfaction of a mortgage or an agreement respecting a
            mortgage, it states the book and page number or the
            document identifying number of the mortgage to which
            it relates if the mortgage has been given such a number.

N.J.S.A. 46:25A-3, on which Wilmington relies, refers solely to the

requirements for recording the mortgage assignment document itself, not the

indexing cover sheet.    Cover sheet requirements are governed by N.J.S.A.

46:26A-5, a law initially effective in 2012 and made mandatory in 2017.

Specific regulations over cover sheet format, fields, and attributes are outlined

in N.J.A.C. 15:3-9.13. These regulations allow each county recorder to adopt a

cover sheet that complies with the regulations and meets the needs of its

recordation procedures. N.J.A.C. 15:3-9.13(c)(2). Cover sheets are required by

all county recording offices for submitted documents of all types, including

deeds, mortgages, assignments, and liens. Proper cover sheets enable such

documents to be indexed and located via computerized search.

                                                                           A-1287-22
                                       12
      The cover sheet to Wilmington's assignment contained the information as

required by N.J.S.A. 46:26A-5(b)(1)-(3) and the corresponding regulations in

N.J.A.C. 15:3-9.13(c)(1)(i)-(iii). However, in failing to include the lot, block,

street address, and name of the municipality, the cover sheet did not include

additional data requested by the county clerk, thus impeding proper, complete

title searches. While the trial court considered the cover sheet deficiencies when

assessing Wilmington's culpability, absent any intentional wrongful action or

fraud, these deficiencies alone were not a valid reason to deny the motion to

vacate the sale.

                                       B.

      The ultimate question is therefore whether the trial judge abused his

discretion in applying the doctrine of laches. We conclude he did not.

      Laches is an equitable doctrine operating as an affirmative defense and

precluding relief when there is an "'unexplainable and inexcusable delay' in

exercising a right." Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 417 (2012) (quoting Cnty. of

Morris v. Fauver, 153 N.J. 80, 105 (1998)). Laches is "invoked to deny a party

enforcement of a known right when the party engages in an inexcusable and

unexplained delay in exercising that right to the prejudice of the other party."

Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 180-81 (2003) (internal citations omitted).

                                                                            A-1287-22
                                       13
Whether to apply laches "depends upon the facts of the particular case and is a

matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." Mancini v. Twp. of

Teaneck, 179 N.J. 425, 436 (2004) (quoting Garrett v. Gen. Motors Corp., 844

F.2d 559, 562 (8th Cir. 1988)). In deciding whether to apply laches, a court

considers: 1) the length of the delay, 2) the reasons for the delay, and 3) how

the circumstances of the parties have changed over the course of the delay.

Knorr, 178 N.J. at 181. "The core equitable concern in applying laches is

whether [an opposing] party has been [unfairly] harmed by the delay." Ibid.

The period of laches should be computed by considering the earliest moment in

time when the right to the relief being sought could have been asserted. Flammia

v. Maller, 66 N.J. Super. 440, 453 (App. Div. 1961).

      In considering the doctrine of laches in the context of a default judgment

entered despite faulty service of process, we held that:

            Even substantial deviations from the prescribed
            procedures may be insufficient to require vacating a
            default judgment based upon flawed service if rights of
            an innocent third party have intervened. . . . "[E]ven
            owners who have been deprived of a property interest
            without notice can by their delay and the reasonable
            reliance of others lose the right to attack a judgment."

            [Sobel v Long Island Entm't Prods., Inc., 329 N.J.
            Super. 285, 293 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting Sonderman
            v. Remington Constr. Co., 127 N.J. 96, 106 (1992)).]

                                                                          A-1287-22
                                       14
See also City of Newark v. Block 1852, 244 N.J. Super. 402, 407-08 (App. Div.

1990); Heinzer v. Summit Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 87 N.J. Super. 430, 439

(App. Div. 1965); Rogan Equities v. Santini, 289 N.J. Super. 95, 114-15 (App.

Div. 1996); Woglemuth v. 560 Ocean Club, 302 N.J. Super. 306 (App. Div.

1997).

      "[W]here a loss must be borne by one or two innocent persons, equity will

impose the loss on that party whose acts first could have prevented the loss."

Cambridge Acceptance Corp. v. Am. Nat'l Motor Inns, Inc., 96 N.J. Super. 183

(Ch. & Law Div. 1967), aff'd, 102 N.J. Super. 435 (App. Div. 1968). See also

Hon. William A. Dreier et al., Guidebook to Chancery Practice in New Jersey,

(Tenth Ed. 2018), Ch. I(A)(12). A court must consider "any prejudice that

would accrue to the other party." In re Guardianship of J.N.H., 172 N.J. 440,

474 (2002).

      Here, the trial court opined:

                    [I]n the present case, the sheriff's sale took place
              on December 13, 2021. Wilmington learned of the sale
              approximately two months later on February 17, 2022.
              Wilmington immediately contacted [Trystone's]
              counsel to reach out to Alloway, but never engaged in
              any follow up communications nor attempted to reach
              Alloway themselves.          Wilmington then waited
              approximately [four] months to intervene into the
              matter on June 10, 2022 . . . . In the meantime, . . .
              Alloway continued to expend money to make

                                                                           A-1287-22
                                         15
             improvements . . . . Wilmington had significant time to
             intervene in this matter and to assert their rights, but
             waited approximately [four] months to do so.

                    ....

             Wilmington's delay to intervene and motion to vacate
             the sheriff's sale after receiving notice of the sale is
             inexcusable considering the reasons stated above.

      Wilmington argues equity requires vacating the sheriff's sale to Alloway

because it never received notice of the sale. It contends refusing to vacate the

tax sale is unfair to it, "while any damage to Alloway upon vacating the sale

could be addressed." Ultimately, Wilmington contends laches favors it and the

trial court's decision is inequitable.

      Rule 4:65-5 is the "Court Rule dealing with sheriff's sales and objections

thereto . . . ." Brookshire Equities, 346 N.J. Super. at 315. The Rule expressly

fixes a ten-day period for the submission of objections to a sheriff's sale.

Hardyston Nat'l Bank of Hamburg v. Tartamella, 56 N.J. 508, 513 (1970). "A

sheriff's sale is automatically confirmed after ten days without an objection

being filed." Brookshire Equities, 346 N.J. Super. at 316.

      While Wilmington could not have filed a motion within ten days of the

sale given its claimed lack of notice, it fails to explain why they waited as long

as it did to file its motion after learning of the sale. If ten days is the time limit

                                                                                A-1287-22
                                         16
for objections in the ordinary course, Wilmington's significantly longer delay

weighs strongly in Alloway's favor in the application of laches.

      Our Supreme Court has identified circumstances that may warrant a delay

in moving to vacate a sheriff's sale beyond the statutory ten-day limit. Scurry,

193 N.J. at 506. The Court in Scurry found the doctrine of laches could not bar

a defendant homeowner from relief where the homeowner was not properly

served with notice of a sheriff's sale, promptly acted upon learning of the sale,

and then moved to vacate the sale four months later. Ibid. The doctrine of

laches did not apply to protect the plaintiff lender's interests because:

            In the balance of equities that lies at the very foundation
            of the application of the doctrine of laches, the
            prejudice alleged by plaintiff simply does not match up
            to defendant having been dispossessed of her home and
            belongings without plaintiff's compliance with its
            procedural notice obligations. In these circumstances,
            where plaintiff cannot demonstrate compliance with the
            procedural requirements precedent to a valid mortgage
            foreclosure action, a conclusion to the contrary in
            respect of the applicability of the doctrine of laches
            lacks rationality, inexplicably departs from established
            policies, and rests, therefore, on an impermissible basis.

            [Id. at 505].

The court also noted, since the date when the foreclosed party lost access to the

property "nothing has happened at or to the property . . . ." Ibid.

                                                                            A-1287-22
                                       17
      The trial court found Scurry distinguishable because Wilmington had

significant time to intervene and instead waited four months during which

Alloway incurred substantial sums to improve the property and pay its taxes.

Although Wilmington frames the delay in intervening as a "slight delay," it is

objectively unreasonable to find a seventy-five-day delay to be "slight." This is

especially so given that Wilmington's recorded assignment indicates it paid Live

Well $10.00 for the property.5 Had Wilmington, within a reasonable time,

sought to intervene in this matter and protect that substantial financial interest,

the court could have exercised its discretion in vacating the tax sale to include

Wilmington in the matter and put Alloway on notice before additional resources

were put into the property's restoration.

      The trial court's decision was not made without a rational explanation nor

rests on an impermissible basis. Indeed, the trial judge reasonably exercised his

discretion when considering the amount of time Wilmington allowed to pass

before intervening and the considerable resources Alloway used to improve the

5
  Although Wilmington's mortgage lien was $239,023.41, the price obtained at
a sheriff's sale is presumed to be for the reasonably equivalent value of the
property. BFP v. Resol. Tr. Co., 511 U.S. 531, 537 (1994) (whether "reasonably
equivalent value" equates to fair market value under 11 U.S.C. §548).
Therefore, the value of this fire-damaged, abandoned structure was the $23,000
paid by Alloway at auction.

                                                                             A-1287-22
                                       18
property during that time. Wilmington learned of the sale and Alloway's interest

in February but did not promptly contact Alloway or otherwise place them on

notice, and instead waited to move to intervene in May and to vacate the sale in

June. The delay is objectively unreasonable under the facts. Wilmington sat on

its rights and failed to intervene in a reasonable time, while Alloway invested

time, money, and resources to rehabilitate the property.

      The trial court properly applied the doctrine of laches and weighed the

equities at stake when it concluded Wilmington lost its right to attack the

foreclosure judgment.    For these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its

discretion, and equity does not warrant vacating the tax sale.

      Affirmed.

                                                                          A-1287-22
                                      19