Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Zimmerman

Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Cape May

June 29, 2017

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS TRUSTEE FOR STANWICH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST A, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN; MRS. ZIMMERMAN, UNKNOWN SPOUSE OF ROBERT ZIMMERMAN; 11TH SURF CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; HIRSCH OPTICAL CORPORATION; COUNTY OF ATLANTIC, Defendants.

          Decided: March 6, 2017

          Mark A. Roney, for plaintiff (Hill Wallack LLP, attorneys).

          Robert Zimmerman, defendant pro se.

          OPINION

          PICKERING, J.S.C.

         NATURE OF THE MOTION

         This action is to foreclose on a single-family residential condominium unit. Plaintiff filed a motion on August 29, 2016, seeking an order to substitute plaintiff and to appoint a custodial receiver for the subject property. On November 29, 2016, this court granted plaintiff's motion to substitute plaintiff and denied the motion to appoint a custodial receiver.

         Plaintiff filed this motion for reconsideration of the order that denied plaintiff's motion to appoint a custodial receiver. In support of its motion, plaintiff provides the certification of Elizabeth Gonzales dated August 19, 2016, the same certification submitted with the original motion, and a letter brief from plaintiff's counsel.

         The motion is unopposed.

         LAW

         RECONSIDERATION

         The standard for a motion for

reconsideration is set forth in Cumming v. Bahr, 295 N.J.Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J.Super. 392, 401-402 (Ch. Div. 1990)): "Reconsideration should be utilized only for those cases which fall into that narrow corridor in which either 1) the Court has expressed its decision based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the Court either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence . . . . Thus, the Court must be sensitive and scrupulous in its analysis of the issues in a motion for reconsideration."

         RECEIVERS

         The appointment of a receiver is rare. "The appointment of any receiver is an extraordinary remedy, and involves the delicate exercise of judicial discretion." Ravin, Sarasohn, Cook, Baumgarten, Fisch & Rosen, P.C. v. Lowenstein Sandler, P.C., 365 N.J.Super. 241, 248-49 (App. Div. 2003) (citing First Nat'l State Bank v. Kron, 190 N.J.Super. 510, 513 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 95 N.J. 204 (1983)). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.