Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 NATHAN R. SCHNITZER VS. RUDOLPH & SANDRA RINDERER -- rank: 1000

... On appeal, the Rinderers contend that a strict construction of N.J.S.A. 54:5-79, as applicable to tax certificates the viability of which continues ... second quarter of 1994, his lien is void pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79.     In our view, however, the critical inquiry in resolving the ... the new owners' attempt to redeem the lien pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79, moreover, contains no special method or manner for a certificate ... agree with the defendant's view that strict construction of N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 permits property owners to automatically work a forfeiture of a ... the property owner] of a tax appeal.").     Prior to 1987, N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 provided for an automatic termination of a tax certificate holder ... 1974).     In 1987, the Legislature added the following provision to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79:         The limitation period of 20 years of this section ...

docket:	a3815-95
court:	njappellate
decided:	1996-10-15
status:	published
citation:	<a href=
Document Size:	30053

2 Nathan Schnitzer v. Rudolf F. Rinderer, Jr. et al. -- rank: 959

... On appeal to the Appellate Division, defendants, Rinderer, contended that N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 required a reversal of the trial court’s judgment setting ... say that [t]hey do not require an analysis of N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 where a tax certificate holder is precluded from continuing to ... to proper redemption. I also set forth my view of N.J.S.A. 54:5-79, which coincides completely with my understanding of the determination of ... thrust, intent and purpose of the statute. I conclude that N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 is remedial legislation to be liberally interpreted. “Where the ... would be completely vitiated. In addition to my conclusion that N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 is remedial legislation to be liberally interpreted, “[t]he ...

docket:	08465-96
court:
decided:	1998-01-14
status:
citation:	17 N.J. Tax 136
Document Size:	81051

3 MONROE TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITIES v. CONSOLIDATED APARTMENTS, INC., et al. -- rank: 919

... agree that the resolution of that issue is governed by N.J.S.A. 54:5-79, but they disagree as to the import of the language ... assigns in each year since the purchase of the certificate. [ N.J.S.A. 54:5-79.] Because the Township held the certificate more than twenty years ... matter of law, that the twenty-year period specified in N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 did not begin to run while the certificate was held ... are expressly exempt from the twenty-year mandate to foreclose. N.J.S.A. 54:5-79. In addition, the statute, by express terms, "shall not apply ... appeal, that the term "sale" in the first sentence of N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 should be interpreted as referring only to the original sale ... fell within the exception created by the 1987 amendment to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 that provides that the limitations period does not apply ...

docket:	a4908-04
court:	njappellate
decided:	2006-06-13
status:	published
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	44794

4 257-261 20TH AVENUE REALTY, LLC v. ALESSANDRO ROBERTO -- rank: 846

... action within '[twenty] years from the date of the sale.' N.J.S.A. 54:5-79. 'After the complaint has been filed redemption shall be made ...

docket:	a3315-21
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2023-12-04
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	64791

5 SIDNEY S. KANTER v. MALCOLM SCHARF -- rank: 613

... Property in 2004-2005 rendered his certificate void pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79, finding that Scharf's complaint was filed within the twenty ... argues that Scharf's tax sale certificate expired pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:5-79. Scharf purchased the tax sale certificate on October 8, 1986 ...

docket:	a2977-11
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2012-11-07
status:	unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	24094

6 FRANK FALOTICO v. SYED KHUSRO PARVEZ -- rank: 609

... A-2106-19 20 the twenty-year period provided by N.J.S.A. 54:5-79 (the 'title of a purchaser at a sale shall cease ...

docket:	a2106-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2022-02-10
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	51671