ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ v. CALAGERO SANTANGELO, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1202-05T21202-05T2

ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CALAGERO SANTANGELO and

ANGELINA SANTANGELO, his wife,

their heirs, devisee and

personal representatives,

and their or any of their successors

in right, title and interest;

MRS. LORENZO SANTANGELO, [appellant's]

wife, ATLANTIC CITY SEWERAGE

AUTHORITY; ATLANTIC CITY

MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY;

STATE OF NEW JERSEY; UNKNOWN

OWNERS/UNKNOWN CLAIMANTS,

their heirs, devisees and personal

representatives and their or any of

their successors in right, title and

interest,

Defendants,

and

LORENZO SANTANGELO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

 

Argued: November 8, 2006 - Decided November 27, 2006

Before Judges Axelrad, R.B. Coleman and Gilroy.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Atlantic County, F-3873-05.

Duane T. Phillips argued the cause for appellant.

Keith A. Bonchi argued the cause for respondent (Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, Bonchi & Gill, attorneys; Mr. Bonchi, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Lorenzo Santangelo, son of the deceased record owner of the property, who has an ownership interest in the property from his father's estate, appeals from the July 22, 2005 order of the Law Division striking his answer to the foreclosure complaint filed by plaintiff, the holder of the tax sale certificate on the property, and the September 23, 2005 order denying his motion for reconsideration. The court determined there was no basis in law for defendant's challenge to Atlantic City's corrected assignment of the tax sale certificate to plaintiff.

On November 4, 2005, defendant filed a Notice of Appeal, indicating there were other parties added to the action, and the order was not certified as final and was only "final as to this defendant." The caption on the amended complaint indicates that besides defendant and other members of his family, Atlantic City Sewerage Authority, Atlantic City Municipal Utilities Authority, State of New Jersey and "Unknown Owners/Unknown Claimants" are also named as defendants. At oral argument, we confirmed that a final judgment of foreclosure has not as yet been entered and is not expected to be entered until November l7, 2006.

Appeals as of right may only be taken from a final order. R. 2:2-3(a)(1). To be final, a judgment must dispose of all claims against all parties, reflecting the view that "[p]iecemeal [appellate] reviews, ordinarily, are [an] anathema to our practice." Golden Estates v. Continental Cas., 317 N.J. Super. 82, 87 (App. Div. l998) (quoting Frantzen v. Howard, 132 N.J. Super. 226, 227-28) (App. Div. l975)). In Eisen v. Kostakos, 116 N.J. Super. 358, 365 (App. Div. l971), we held that a final judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action fixes the amount due under the mortgage and directs the sale of the mortgaged property. In Savage v. Weissmann, 355 N.J. Super. 429, 435 (App. Div. 2002), we held that an order denying a holder of interests in a property the right to intervene in an action to foreclose tax sale certificates was interlocutory where the holder did not have an absolute statutory right of intervention and the order did not settle all issues as to all parties. We noted that the proper procedure was for the unsuccessful intervenor to have filed a notice of motion for leave to appeal. R. 2:2-3(a)(3).

So, too, should an application have been made by the present defendant for leave to appeal the orders striking his answer and denying his request for reconsideration. Clearly the orders were not final as to all parties and all issues and were interlocutory, as the final judgment of foreclosure had not been entered and defendant's period of redemption had not been extinguished. We do not deem this appeal to raise such a novel question in the tax sale certificate field to merit sua sponte granting leave to appeal now as of the date the notice of appeal was filed. Cf. Eisen, supra, 116 N.J. Super. at 366.

Appeal dismissed.

 

In Savage, as the unsuccessful intervenor also filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure, we consolidated both appeals and addressed the merits.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-1202-05T2

November 27, 2006