Nelson v. Naumowicz

• Decision Date: 10 January 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-97.,A-97.
• Citation: 63 A.2d 269
• Parties: NELSON v. NAUMOWICZ et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

63 A.2d 269

NELSON

v.NAUMOWICZ et al.

No. A-97.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 10, 1949.

Appeal from Chancery Court.

Suit by Mary Ann Nelson against Alice Naumowicz and John McNevin, Tax Collector of the Borough of Union Beach, to redeem from a tax sale certificate. From an adverse decree, defendant Alice Naumowicz appeals.

Decree affirmed.

Lillian Clawans, of Newark, for appellant.

Edward J. Abromson, of Newark, for appellee.

CASE, Justice.

Mary Ann Nelson, owner, filed her bill to redeem from a tax sale certificate formerly held by the Borough of Union Beach and now, under assignment, by appellant, Alice Naumowicz. The issue was whether the latter was entitled, as an incident to the redemption, to be reimbursed the costs of certain repairs and improvements made by her to the building on the premises. Chancery decreed that she was not; and the appeal is from that decree.

Appellant argues two points; first, that the municipality would have been entitled to recover for like items and that therefore she, the assignee, is entitled; second, that the owner should be compelled to make reimbursement under the maxim ‘He who seeks equity must do equity’.

The conclusion in the first point does not follow from the premise even if that premise were soundly stated. Rights and liabilities under tax sale proceedings rest upon the statute, Absecon Land Co. v. Keernes, Err. & App.1927, 101 N.J.Eq. 227, 231, 137 A. 429, and, particularly as to the owner's right of redemption against private persons holding tax sale certificates, upon the law in force at the time of sale, Rodgers v. Cressman, Ch.1925, 98 N.J.Eq. 209, 130 A. 17; Harrington Co. v. Jones, Ch.1929, 104 N.J.Eq. 377, 145 A. 869, affirmed on the opinion below Err. & App.1929, 106 N.J.Eq. 280, 151 A. 906. It was clearly demonstrated in Forster v. Davenport, Ch.1940, 128 N.J.Eq. 385, 16 A.2d 614, that after 1929 (the sale sub judice was in 1931) the statute did not confer a right of possession upon the individual holder of a tax sale certificate.

Mrs. Naumowicz knew that her tax sale certificate did not carry the incidents of ownership and that she should proceed by bill to foreclose the owner's right of redemption. So thoroughly did she understand that legal fact that she engaged an attorney to institute proceedings and paid him a retainer to that end; but she professes not to know what happened to the suit. Nevertheless she went on to make disbursements, many of them for capital...