City Of Newark v. Ladato.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1947 |
| Docket Number | 147/305. |
| Parties | CITY OF NEWARK v. LADATO. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by the City of Newark against Guarino Ladato for rescission of sale of tax sale certificate and cancellation of assignment.
Cancellation denied and assignment reformed.
1. In a suit for rescission and cancellation, the complainant has the burden of showing convincingly the facts on which he relies for relief.
2. After the issuance of a tax sale certificate and upon a subsequent division
of the land and an apportionment of the line, the rights of the certificate holder and of persons entitled to redeem, are the same as if several certificates had been issued instead of one.
3. The sale of a tax sale certificate transfers title to the land and to the lien, and such transfer of title is the substance of the transaction.
4. While rescission is in rare instances granted because of a mistake of law, it should not be decreed when the law is unsettled.
5. A mistake which does not touch the assence of the transaction, is not sufficient ground for rescission.
6. Cancellation is appropriate when, by reason of mistake, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties and therefore no agreement has really been made. But reformation is usually the proper remedy when there was in fact a valid transaction, but the writing, through mistake, fails to express the actual agreement.
7. Where reformation is available and will answer the just needs of complainant, the defendant ought not to be deprived of his bargain and cancellation should be denied.
Thomas L. Parsonnet and Nicholas Albano, both of Newark, for complainant.
Sidney C. Swirsky and Harry Kay, both of Newark, for defendant.
BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.
The City of Newark owned tax sale certificate No. 16486, dated June 27, 1932, covering a parcel of land situate on the edge of the Meadows and containing 23.15 acres. The City's records of tax title liens and real estate taxes, under a much later date, November 29, 1940, show the land mentioned in the certificate divided into four lots and the lien of the certificate and subsequent taxes apportioned among them. One of the four lots is known as Lot No. 50 in Block 5088. In 1945, the City held a public sale of tax sale certificates. One of the offerings was described in the notice of sale and at the sale as follows: Block 5088, Lot 50. Certificate No. 16486. Due on face amount of certificate, including interest and costs to date of sale, $374.95. Due on subsequent liens to December 31, 1944, including interest and costs to date of sale, $6,550.59. Total amount required for redemption, $6,925.54.
The several sums stated were the amounts which had been allocated to Lot 50, and not the whole amount due on certificate 16486 and the 23.15 acres. The defendant, Guarino Lodato, was the highest bidder at $2,100. The sale to him was confirmed by the City Commission, and an assignment duly executed in behalf of the City was delivered to him. What the City sold and Lodato bought, or what they intended to sell and buy, was the City's title and lien on Lot 50 and no more. But the language of the assignment is not clear. It purports to transfer all the City's ‘right, title, interest, property and estate in and to a certain certificate of tax sale No. 16486, dated June 27, 1932, owned by the City of Newark, N. J., covering the lands and premises known and designated as Block No. 5088, Lot No. 50.’
Lodato, last April, instituted suit in Chancery to foreclose his tax lien. In his bill, he describes by metes and bounds Lot No. 50 and not the whole tract of 23.15 acres. Any decree in that cause will bar redemption of only the lands described in the bill. R.S. 54:5-104, N.J.S.A.
The City sues on the theory that, by a mutual mistake, it transferred to Lodato its interest in the entire tract and it prays that the sale be rescinded, and the assignment cancelled, and that prosecution of the foreclosure suit be enjoined. Lodato, however, asserts a title to Lot 50 only, and disclaims any interest in the rest of the large parcel. He denies that there was a mistake in the public sale and confirmation, and he is willing that the assignment be reformed so as to make clear what he purchased.
The City says that it did not sell its interest in Lot 50 only, for it was unable to do so, inasmuch as there had been no actual apportionment of the lien among the several lots. While there is no direct proof of apportionment by resolution of the governing body of the City pursuant to R.S. 54:7-4, N.J.S.A., or by a municipal officer designated under R.S. 54:-7-7, N.J.S.A., there is also an absence of satisfactory evidence that there was no such action. The City's records of tax liens and the official tax search on Lot No. 50 indicate an apportionment and permit the inference that the apportionment was effected by some proper method. Furthermore, one of the lots into which the 23.15 acres had been divided in 1940, was again divided and the lien which had been set off to that lot was apportioned among its subdivisions by resolution of the City Commission June 4, 1941. This action was based on the supposition that there had theretofore been a due apportionment of the liens on the 23.15-acre parcel. In a suit for rescission and cancellation, the complainant has the burden of showing convincingly the facts on which he relies for relief. 12 C.J.S., Cancellation of Instruments, § 71, p. 1060. In the present state of the proofs, I cannot find that there was no valid apportionment.
Now comes the question whether the statute under which the City conducted the sale of tax sale certificates, P.L.1943, p. 425, known also as R.S. 54:5-114.2 et seq., N.J.S.A., authorizes the sale of such an interest in a certificate as transfers title to a part of the land and lien evidenced by a certificate. Let us first notice that Chapter 7 of our statute, relating to apportionment, expressly permits the apportionment of ‘the claim of the municipality under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannett v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 88-111
...of a precedent, or clarification of prior judicial decisions, does not. See 20 Am.Jur.2d §§ 41, 235; City of Newark v. Ladato, 139 N.J.Eq. 471, 475, 51 A.2d 895, 898 (1947). Mrs. Gannett, in arguing that she and Merchants made a mistake of law, relies principally on our holding in Descoteau......
-
State v. Kahua Ranch, Limited
...the lease. 4 This is not an attempt to reform the written instrument to conform to the published notice of sale. Cf., Newark v. Lodato, 139 N.J.Eq. 471, 51 A.2d 895. Nor is relief sought to correct a clerical error or inadvertence. Cf., Fullerton v. City of Des Moines, 147 Iowa 254, 126 N.W......
-
Mischiara v. Board of Adjustment of Piscataway Tp.
...of redemption by the owner. Chelsea Laundry Co. v. Toscano, 14 N.J.Super. 496, 500, 82 A.2d 473 (Ch.Div.1951); City of Newark v. Ladato, 139 N.J.Eq. 471, 51 A.2d 895 (Ch.1947); Clark v. Jersey City, 8 N.J.Super. 33, 73 A.2d 197 (App.Div.1950); R.S. 54:5--52, N.J.S.A. Thus, the purchaser of ......
-
Borough of Wildwood Crest v. Smith
...by the Borough. The judgment in that cause bars redemption only in the lands described in the complaint. See Newark v. Lodato, 139 N.J.Eq. 471, 472, 51 A.2d 895 (Chan.1947). Proceedings to foreclose a tax sale certificate are not followed by a public sale, nor by a deed from a sheriff or ot......