Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

The Latest on Equitable Subrogation, From Judge Geiger

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Feb 16, 2021 in Appellate Division, Chancery issues, Effect of decisions by other courts, Judges | 0 comments

New York Mortgage Trust v. Deely, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2021). Every few years, the Appellate Division publishes an opinion about equitable subrogation. Equitable subrogation, “rooted in principles of equity, is used to compel the ultimate discharge of an obligation by the one who in good conscience ought to pay it,” regardless of whose mortgage was recorded first. Some recent examples of equitable subrogation decisions are here (Sovereign Bank v. Gillis, 432 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2013), which figured prominently in this new ruling), here, and here. This opinion by Judge Geiger is the latest in that series.

This was a mortgage priority dispute between plaintiff and defendant Bank of America in a residential mortgage foreclosure case. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the Chancery Division applied equitable subrogation to give plaintiff’s mortgage priority, even though it was recorded after defendant’s mortgage. Applying de novo review to the grant of summary judgment, but recognizing that appellate “review of a trial court’s decision to apply an equitable doctrine is limited,” and that the panel would not “substitute our judgment for that of the trial judge in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion,” the Appellate Division affirmed.

The opinion is notable for the panel’s decision to deviate from First Union Nat’l Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J. Super. 557 (App. Div. 2002). That case held that a new lender “is not entitled to subrogation, absent an agreement or formal assignment, if it possesses actual knowledge of the prior encumbrance.”

Judge Geiger and his colleagues chose not to follow this “actual knowledge” rule. Instead, they adopted a principle from the Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages, that makes “material prejudice to the intervening lienor” the polestar. Gillis, mentioned above, had adopted other principles of the Third Restatement, apparently the first New Jersey case to have done so. That opened the door for this decision.

Judge Geiger explained that “[e]quitable subrogation is appropriate when loan proceeds from refinancing satisfies the first mortgage, the second mortgage is paid in full as part of the transaction, and the transaction is based on a discharge of the second mortgage, so long as the junior lienor, here defendant, is not materially prejudiced. Under such circumstances, equitable subrogation should not be precluded by the new lender’s actual knowledge of the intervening mortgage. To do otherwise would allow [defendant] to reap an undeserved windfall by allowing the junior lienor to vault over the priority of the refinancing mortgage lender.” The panel relied on Gillis for this holding.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Patty Shwartz Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress