NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3023-19 ROMEL SILAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAPHAEL A. CRANDON, Defendant-Respondent. ________________________ Submitted January 26, 2021 – Decided March 19, 2021 Before Judges Moynihan and Gummer. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Hudson County, Docket No. C- 000025-20. Miller, Meyerson & Corbo, attorneys for appellant (Gerald D. Miller, on the briefs). Michael C. Schonberger, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM Plaintiff Romel Siland appeals from the trial court's order denying his application for an order to show cause "seeking[,] among other relief[,] specific enforcement of an agreement" he and defendant Raphael A. Crandon entered for the sale of a two-family house in Jersey City, imposition of a lien on that property and an injunction against the sale of the property to a third party; and sua sponte dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's earlier-filed complaint seeking like relief. We agree with plaintiff that the trial court erred in denying injunctive relief and dismissing the complaint and reverse. The June 11, 2009 contract1 called for the property to be sold for "$210,000 of which $166,457.75 [was] the unpaid principal balance" of defendant's mortgage note to a lender, a deposit of $40,000 and $3,542.25 listed as "[u]pon obtaining financing." Plaintiff averred he had made monthly payments of $1,488.20 on the note from June 2009 through February 2020 ; paid all taxes; maintained insurance on the property; and made repairs, including to a water line, as required by the contract. On September 20, 2019, defendant wrote to plaintiff, informing him that the property would be listed for sale. On December 20, 2019, defendant contracted with a third-party purchaser to sell the property for $320,000. On 1 Inexplicably, the contract was also referred to as a "mortgage" to the lender and defendant, "mean[ing] that [plaintiff] give[s] the [lender] and [defendant] those rights stated in this [m]ortgage and also those rights the law gives to [the lender] and [defendant] who hold mortgages on real property." A-3023-19 2 February 7, 2020, plaintiff filed his complaint; on the same day, he filed a lis pendens. Six days later, plaintiff filed the order-to-show-cause application. Although the court required that plaintiff serve defendant with the order to show cause within five days, defendant was not served until February 21, 2020. Defendant transferred title to the property to the third-party on February 19, 2020. Plaintiff amended his complaint on March 23, 2020, to include the third- party purchaser and the title company used in that transaction as additional defendants. On the March 27, 2020 return date, the court delivered its oral decision denying the application for the order to show cause and sua sponte dismissing the complaint and entered the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals