Over the years, courts have accumulated a large volume of decisions pertaining to statutory interpretation and what rules should be applied when deciphering legislative intent in cases where litigants disagree over the meaning of a statute. In some cases, the meaning of a particular word comes into play causing linguistic issues, and in other cases the use of specific words (i.e., “shall,” “may,” “or” and “and”) help clarify the legislative intent.
In a recent case decided by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, the Bankruptcy Court found itself bound by the rules of statutory construction in a case where it was forced to decide whether the debtor would receive a free home (not really free, but close to it). In re Washington, Case No. 14-14573 (Bankr. D.N.J. Nov. 5, 2014). In the end, the Bankruptcy Court held that, under New Jersey law, a mortgage holder is time-barred from foreclosing on a residential mortgage if the complaint is not filed within six years of the date the mortgage loan was accelerated by the mortgagee. Since the mortgagee did not file its complaint within the six year time period, the mortgage loan was unenforceable and voided by the Bankruptcy Court.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
