15-2-3695 Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC v. Quinn, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Carroll, J.A.D.) (10 pp.) In 2004, defendants David and Louisa Wuebbens conveyed their home to their daughter, Marla Wuebbens Quinn, while retaining life estates in the property. In 2005, Quinn and defendants executed a $260,000 mortgage on the property in favor of plaintiff's assignor, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the 2005 mortgage). In 2007, Quinn refinanced the mortgage loan for $380,000 with IndyMac (the 2007 mortgage) and used the proceeds, in part, to satisfy the 2005 mortgage. IndyMac's title commitment failed to disclose defendants' recorded life estate interests in the property. As a result, defendants did not execute the 2007 mortgage. In 2009, IndyMac filed an action to foreclose the 2007 mortgage after Quinn defaulted. The issue presented is whether plaintiff's 2007 mortgage lien takes priority over defendants' earlier recorded life estate interests in the property. Applying principles of replacement and modification recognized in the Restatement (Third) of Property—Mortgages (1997), the court extends its holding in Sovereign Bank v. Gillis, 432 N.J. Super. 36 (App. Div. 2013), so as to grant plaintiff's mortgage limited priority over defendants' life estates. Consequently, the court “capped” plaintiff's mortgage priority at $260,000, and preserved the priority of defendants' life estates over the portion of the 2007 mortgage loan that exceeded that amount. (Approved for Publication)

25-1-3728 Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare's Health Sys., N.J. Sup. Ct. (Solomon, J.,) (58 pp.) On the record before the trial court, issues of material fact exist. The Court affirms and modifies the judgment of the Appellate Division and remands the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

20-2-3698 Reibman v. Myers, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Whipple, J.A.D.) (23 pp.) In this appeal, the Appellate Division was asked to consider whether plaintiff's property rights in the marital home under the New Jersey Joint Possession Statute N.J.S.A. 3B:28-3 were released, extinguished, or merged by virtue of a subsequent deed granting title by the entirety with defendant husband. This court holds, when plaintiff obtained a fee interest she lost protection under N.J.S.A. 3B:28-3 because her possessory interest merged into the greater fee estate. As such, plaintiff's interest was subject to liens and an equitable mortgage, particularly, as here, where plaintiff was aware of and enjoyed the benefit of those loans and the parties intended the property to secure repayment. (Approved for Publication)

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Go To Lexis →

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Go To Bloomberg Law →

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

NOT FOR REPRINT