Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. v. Benun, 226 N.J. 41 (2016). A future advance mortgage, in broad outline, is a mortgage that secures a loan that is made in stages, rather than all at once. This case called on the Supreme Court to decide whether and when such a mortgage has priority over an intervening lien. The Appellate Division, in an opinion summarized briefly here, applied the common law rule that
Jul
22
Future Advance Mortgages: The Law From the Past Remains the Law (With Perhaps One Exception) in the Present
Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Jul 22, 2016 in Chancery issues, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges, Statutory interpretation, Summary judgment, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments
Jun
22
In each of the last two days, the Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions involving the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -42 (“LAD”). Yesterday, in Smith v. Millville Rescue Squad, 225 N.J. 373 (2016), the Court ruled that the LAD’s protection against discrimination based on marital status extends to persons who have separated from a spouse and are in the process of divorce. Judge Cuff wrote that opinion. Today, in
This has been a busy past ten days for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that busy period coincided with one of my own busy periods. So here is a very brief recap of some of the actions that the Court took since April 26: In Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 224 N.J. 584 (2016), a closely-watched case, the Court voted 3-2 that in prosecuting a fiduciary malpractice action against an attorney who intentionally violated an escrow agreement, the prevailing beneficiary could be award
reader