Hon. Paul Innes
Presiding Judge
Civil Courthouse
175 South Broad Street
3rd Floor
Trenton, NJ 08650
Phone: 609-571-4200,
ext 74204
Fax: (609) 571-4233
Clerk of Superior Court
Michelle M. Smith
Michelle M. Smith
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
Superior Court Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 971
Trenton, NJ 08625-0971
Superior Court Clerk's Office
P.O. Box 971
Trenton, NJ 08625-0971
Hon. Mary C. Jacobson
Assignment Judge
New Criminal Courthouse
400 S. Warren Street, 4th
Floor
Trenton, NJ 08650
Phone: (609) 571-4200, ext. 74499
Fax: 609-571-4463
Thomas J. LaConte
Chancery Court Presiding Judge.
Superior Court of
New Jersey
Paterson Courthouse
71 Hamilton Street,
1st Floor
Paterson, New Jersey
07505
Phone: (973)
247-8168
FAX: (973) 247-8172
RE: REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF EXTRAORDINARY
LEGAL ERRORS OF THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE. ISSUANCE OF EX-PARTE WRITS AND EX-PARTE
JUDGMENTS IN VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTES AND CASE LAW. CASE NUMBER: F-9241-09
Dear Judge Innes, Judge Jacobson, Judge LaConte and Clerk
of the Superior Court:
I am writing to request that
you correct the unlawful entry of judgments and/or writs that were entered by
the Clerk of the Superior Court in violation of state law. Apparently, the Clerk entered judgments and
writs on an ex-parte basis, despite the fact that Stephanatos and thousands of
homeowners becaome tenants-at-sufferance whose rights are protected by either
the Summary Dispossess act, N.J.S.
2A:18-53 et seq. or the
anti-eviction act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et
seq.
Pursuant to the authority of HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF
WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J.
311 (1979), Basilis
N. Stephanatos, PhD, JD, files this instant request to officially enter a
record of void writ of possession and void judgment of possession that was
wrongly and unlawfully entered by the former Clerk of the Superior Court on May
13, 2011 in the case F-9241-09. See
Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
My residence was foreclosed on May 13,
2011 because I was refusing to pay an unlawful over-assessment of my property: I
purchased the property in 1993 for $240K, but it was assessed at $475K – this
almost 100% overassessment violates the Uniformity Clause of the State
Constitution. Further proof that the
property was impermissibly over assessed was the fact that the antitrust
conspirators American Tax Funding, LLC and ATF Real Property, LLC sold my
residence for $330K in January 2012, while the assessment was still at $475K, a
40 percent overassessment. As a matter
of state case law, the assessment was void.
The alleged tax I was refusing to pay were approximately $20K.
Even if we assume that the judgment of
foreclosure was valid, at the time of entering that judgment, I became a tenant
at sufferance. I had two small
businesses in my property that were also tenants – yet, with the writ that was
issued without jurisdiction by the Clerk on May 13, 2011, they were both
removed and permanently destroyed. Here is the case law of this state:
Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at
a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains the legal right to possession of land
purchased as soon as he obtains a deed from the selling officer." 30 New
Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 373. The mortgagor's continued possession
of the property after such time is that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso
v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961) (quoting 2 C.J.S.
Adverse Possession § 105, page 659) ("The owner's continued possession after
sale of the property at execution, judicial, or like sale is that of a tenant
at sufferance of the purchaser”). In Re St. Clair, 251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J.
2000).
THE ANTITRUST
CONSPIRACY OF AMERICAN TAX FUNDING, LLC AND ROBERT DEL VECCHIO, ESQ. ET AL
The antitrust conspirators willfully and corruptly
intended to enter into a criminal and fraudulent transaction through the
anti-trust conspiracy. Its existence against Stephanatos and
thousands of New Jersey homeowners was determined and confirmed by the federal
judge Michael A. Shipp in the federal antitrust case IN RE NEW JERSEY TAX SALES CERTIFICATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Master
Docket No. 3:12-CV-01893-MAS-TJB (see
http://www.njtaxliensettlements.com/
and by the conviction of at least 15
individuals and entities in New Jersey, including Passaic County, by the U.S.
Attorney’s Office (See https://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2014/former-new-york-tax-liens-investment-company-executive-pleads-guilty-to-role-in-bid-rigging-scheme-at-municipal-tax-lien-auctions
Both the
Robert U. Del Vecchio, Sr. (now deceased) and Robert A. Del Vecchio, Jr. are
accused of being participants in the antitrust conspiracy. They are both active in the tax lien
business, they are both lawyers, they are related by blood (father and son),
and they both share common place of business and place of residence in
Hawthorn, Passaic County, New Jersey.
The Del Vecchios also established similar “pension plans” to hide their
ill-gotten gains, such as the Robert Del Vecchio
Pension Plan, LLC. The Pension
plans will be added as Defendants in this action to recover the millions in
damages caused by the Del Vecchios.
Robert Del Vecchio, Sr. has pleaded guilty to a felony charge in Federal
Court in Newark on September 30, 2013.
According to the
court documents, Del Vecchio, Sr. and Michael Mastellone, of Cedar Knolls, New
Jersey were involved in the conspiracy with others not to bid against one
another at municipal tax lien auctions in New Jersey or to do mock biddings on
select liens that were of small amounts and would refrain from bidding on the
premium phase of the bidding. Since the conspiracy permitted the conspirators
to purchase tax liens with limited competition, each conspirator was able to
obtain liens that earned a higher interest rate or lower paid premium to the
municipality or through the monopoly would obtain rights for charging the
highest possible interest rate (18 percent) for all subsequent liens without
any bidding on the subsequent liens. Property owners were therefore made to pay
higher interest on their tax debts than they would have paid had their liens
been purchased in open and honest competition, the department said.
Robert A. Del Vecchio, Esq. an attorney at
law of Hawthorn, New Jersey provided false certifications to the Office of
Foreclosure that this was an uncontested case, despite the fact that
Stephanatos had fully contested this case; this way, Del Vecchio managed to
circumvent the Anti-Eviction Act, the Summary Dispossess Act of New Jersey, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. and
fooled the Acting Law Clerk, Jennifer Perez, and the Office of Foreclosure into
issuance of an ex-parte writ of possession.
Del Vecchio also made false representations to this Court that
Stephanatos had no possessory interests and that there are no tenants or
residents on the property that must be protected by the Anti-Eviction Act
and/or the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et
seq., when in fact Metropolitan Environmental
Services, a business owned by Stephanatos, was a tenant in the premises. Del Vecchio also fraudulently certified to
the Court that Stephanatos had not paid any taxes since 1993, an entirely
fraudulently assertion. Del Vecchio also
fraudulently certified to the Passaic County Court and to the Sheriff of that
County that Stephanatos had threatened him with violence, an entirely
fraudulent assertion. Del Vecchio also
fraudulently certified to this Court that this was a mortgage foreclosure case,
when in fact Stephanatos had no mortgage (he fully owned the property) and this
was a tax sale foreclosure case. Del
Vecchio fraudulently submitted forms and papers to the Office of Foreclosure
that pertain to mortgage foreclosures, although he knew that this was a tax
sale foreclosure. Del Vecchio
fraudulently presented and certified to the state Court mortgage foreclosure
cases as the basis of his certifications to the Court, although he knew that
this was not a mortgage foreclosure case.
Del Vecchio also fraudulently represented to the state court the amount
allegedly owed by Stephanatos in the form of taxes, when he knew that no taxes
were due because of the impermissible over-assessment of Stephanatos’ residence
by more than 40 percent (properties proven fair market value was $330,000 but
it had impermissibly over-assessed at $475,000, making all taxes void ab
initio).
The New Jersey Court In Village of
Ridgefield Park et al., v. Bergen County Board of Taxation et al., 62 N.J.Super. 133, 162 A.2d 132 said
that any assessment levied in violation of the constitutional mandate of
uniformity is absolutely void Ab initio.
Thus, the taxes were void, as a matter of New Jersey law. Therefore, all subsequent acts of the
municipal, antitrust and county personnel were illegal, as a matter of law.
Del Vecchio fraudulently certified to the
Chancery Court that ATF had lawfully obtained the tax sale certificate at zero
percent (0%) interest rate, when ATF colluded with Del Vecchio and others to
rig the bids. ATF in fact charged at
least eighteen percent (18%) interest for all years but the first year. Del
Vecchio and Bonchi also fraudulent failed to notify this Court that the writ
was void because it was issued by the Clerk in Mercer County in violation of
state statutes. N.J.S.A.
2A:18-57 provides that in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of
removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for
possession."
THE FRAUDULENT
CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT DEL VECCHIO, ESQ THAT DR. STEPHANATOS HAD NO POSSESSORY
RIGHTS PROTECTED BY STATE LAW
On or about April 18, 2011, one of the
antitrust conspirators, Robert Del Vecchio, Esq., applied for an ex-parte
judgment for possession and an ex-parte writ of possession from the Office of
Foreclosure, certifying (i.e., swearing under oath) that Stephanatos had no
possessory rights. Specifically, Del
Vecchio certified that Stephanatos was not protected by the Anti-Eviction Act,
while he fardulently concealed from the Clerk that Stephanatos was a
tenant-at-sufferance protected by the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq.
No demand to quit or any other notice
was provided prior to entering the judgment for possession or the writ of
possession. Such notices and demands are
required by state law. To make matters
worse, the Clerk of the Superior Court entered the writ the same day as the
final judgment on May 13, 2011, an act that is prohibited by state law, as well.
No motion and notice was provided to
Stephanatos for substituting the foreclosing plaintiff ATF, LLC to ATFH Real
Property, LLC. As a result, ATFH Real
Property, LLC lacked the standing to apply for final judgment and to apply for
a writ of possession from the office of foreclosure.
Furthermore, as the New Jersey Supreme
Court has ruled, in HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979). Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was
not), the clerk had no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the
same day the judgment was entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary
dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the
expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
To make matters even worse, state law
says that an LLC cannot occupy a residential property. Here is the case law:
Residential properties in New Jersey cannot be
occupied by LLCs.
In Law, the plaintiff LLC served its tenant with a notice to
quit based on N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(l)(3) which permits a landlord to remove a
tenant if the owner of the property seeks to personally occupy a unit. Id. at
425. The plaintiff argued that it was entitled to avail itself of that
provision because its sole member intended to reside in the leased unit. Ibid.
We disagreed and, in an opinion authored by our former
colleague Judge Dorothea Wefing, we examined the purpose of the anti-eviction
statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1(l)(3)), which we found was "to protect
residential tenants from the effects of what the Legislature has recognized to
be a severe shortage of rental housing in this state." Id. at 425 (citing
Franklin Tower One, L.L.C. v. N.M., 157 N.J. 602, 614 (1999)). Under those
circumstances, we concluded that an LLC could not personally occupy a residential
property within the intendment of the statute
It is in accord with the appellate court's reasoning in
[Law], supra, that the court finds that an LLC is not eligible as an
owner-occupant of residential property.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY, APPELLATE DIVISION, DOCKET NO.
A-0
MARIA PADILLA and 32 4TH STREET, LLC, v. CITY OF ELIZABETH, December 13, 2016.
Despite this law, the Clerk
erroneously entered a judgment for possession for an LLC in a residential
property without any hearing and without any notice and entered a writ the same
day as the judgment for possession. All
these acts of the Clerk were is violation of state law.
Eviction Actions After Foreclosure in New York State
When
the original owner continues to live in the property after a lender has obtained
title by a Referee’s Deed in foreclosure, the new owner must take legal action
to evict the occupant. In New York State, such evictions can be accomplished
under New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 713. This section
provides grounds for eviction “where no landlord-tenant relationship exists.”
Subsection 5 provides that if the property has been sold in foreclosure, then a
certified copy of the deed in foreclosure must be exhibited to the persons to
be evicted from the premises.
If
such an action is brought, it must be brought as a separate action from the
original foreclosure, in a Court with appropriate jurisdiction. Even though no
landlord-tenant relationship may exist, the procedures for such an action are
similar to those in an ordinary landlord-tenant proceeding, with the end result
being a warrant of eviction, assuming the necessary procedural requirements
have been met.
Summary
proceedings are a statutory creation, first enacted by the New York State
legislature in 1820. Laws of 1820, Ch. 194.
That
goal was, and remains, to provide a “simple, expeditious and inexpensive means
of regaining possession of premises,” 201 NY at 454. while providing necessary
and appropriate defenses to protect occupants’ rights.
New York Consolidated Laws, Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law - RPA § 713. Grounds where no landlord-tenant relationship exists
A special proceeding may be maintained under this article
after a ten-day notice to quit has been served upon the respondent in the
manner prescribed in section 735 , upon the following
grounds:
1. The property has been sold by virtue of an execution
against him or a person under whom he claims and a title under the sale has
been perfected.
2. He occupies or holds the property under an agreement with
the owner to occupy and cultivate it upon shares or for a share of the crops
and the time fixed in the agreement for his occupancy has expired.
3. He or the person to whom he has succeeded has intruded
into or squatted upon the property without the permission of the person
entitled to possession and the occupancy has continued without permission or
permission has been revoked and notice of the revocation given to the person to
be removed.
4. The
property has been sold for unpaid taxes and a tax deed has been executed and
delivered to the purchaser and he or any subsequent grantee, distributee or
devisee claiming title through such purchaser has complied with all provisions
of law precedent to the right to possession and the time of redemption by the
former owner or occupant has expired.
In addition to the New Jersey and other state law that Stephanatos has cited, we also cite the law of the State of Virginia.
Evictions and Unlawful Detainers
House Bill 311 codifies certain roles and procedures during unlawful detainer matters:- A former owner of a single-family residential dwelling unit who remains in the property after foreclosure is now defined as a tenant at sufferance.
- A successor owner has the right to file an unlawful detainer action three days after giving the tenant written termination notice.
The Virginia law is identical to the one New
Jersey has. The antitrust conspirators
failed to use the applicable New Jersey statutes because they certified that
Stephanatos had no possessory rights (i.e., that he was not a tenant at
sufferance).
Furthermore, New Hampshire law
considers a homeowner who remains in a home lost to foreclosure to be a tenant
at sufferance, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that “a purchaser at a foreclosure sale may not
use self-help to evict a tenant at sufferance.” Evans v. J Four Realty, LLC, 164 N.H. 570, 574, 576 (2013); see
also Greelish v. Wood, 154 N.H. 521, 527
(2006). Instead, a foreclosure sale purchaser must employ the summary
procedure prescribed by chapter 540 of the New Hampshire Revised Statutes to
evict a tenant at sufferance from foreclosed property. See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 540:12 (providing for “purchaser [of
property] at a mortgage foreclosure sale” to “recover possession” of property
held by tenant at sufferance); Evans, 164
N.H. at 756-77.
It is also true that under Georgia
law, “[w]here former owners of real
property remain in possession after a foreclosure sale, they become tenants at
sufferance.” Steed v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Corp., 689 S.E.2d 843, 848 (Ga. Ct.
App. 2009). When this occurs, a landlord-tenant relationship exists between
the legal title holder and a tenant at sufferance, and dispossessory procedures
set forth in O.C.G.A. § 44-7-50 provide the exclusive method by which a
landlord may evict the tenant. Steed, 689 S.E.2d at 848. It is also very significant here that
Stephanatos never relinquished possession of his residential property and thus
he never ceased being a tenant at sufferance, along with his business
properties (Metropolitan Engineering Services, PC and Metropolitan
Environmental Services).
Therefore, numerous states, including
New Jersey provide for a summary dispossess proceeding prior to issuance of a
judgment for possession and a writ.
Here, the Clerk entered these documents without having the requisite
jurisdiction and a result they were void ab initio. Although the damage has already done, it is
the right thing for the Clerk to officially void these documents to correct
these errors. Mr. Sven Pfahlert clearly
provides below further proof of the above violations because he states that if
the anti-eviction act does not apply, then the tenant-at-sufferance is not
protected by state laws. This is
wrong. Considering the dramatic impact
on people’s possessory interest that there negligent and/or reckless decisions
have made, I have notified the state legislature of what is going on.
EMAIL FROM SVEN
PFAHLERT, OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE
Last Friday, after many letters and
requests from the Office of Foreclosure to explain the violations of state laws
and due process as has been provided by the state legislature, I received an
email from one Sven E. Pfahlert, Esq., Administrative Office of the Courts,
Superior Court Clerk’s Office, 25 Market Street, Trenton, New Jersey. Mr. Pfahlert wrote the following (see Exhibit
A):
The New
Jersey Anti-Eviction Act applies to tenants, not prior property owners. N.J.S.A.
2A:18-51 et seq and cited case
law refer to landlord/tenant proceedings. The Office of Foreclosure will take
no action in this matter absent a judge’s order. Please be guided accordingly.
However, as I explained to
Mr. Pfahlert, the State’s own law revision commission states the following:
Since enactment of
the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the Summary Dispossess Act,
N.J.S.
2A:18-53 et seq. has
been understood to cover the eviction of nonresidential tenants and residential
tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act. Source:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION, Final Report Relating
to Landlord and Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.
In other words, even if the
Anti-Eviction Act does not apply, then the Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. applies
for all other tenants, including tenants at sufferance.
This tenancy at sufferance
is included in the definition of tenant in the New Jersey statutes: "Tenant"
includes, but is not limited to, a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or
for any duration, or any subtenants, assigns, or legal repre of the lessee or
tenant. Title 46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14,
eviction generally. 46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental
premises; what is included.
Here is some of the case law
of New Jersey:
Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at
a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains the legal right to possession of land
purchased as soon as he obtains a deed from the selling officer." 30 New
Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 373. The mortgagor's continued possession
of the property after such time is that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso v.
Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961)
(quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 105, page 659) ("The owner's
continued possession after sale of the property at execution, judicial, or like
sale is that of a tenant at sufferance of the purchaser”). In Re St. Clair,
251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J. 2000).
As defined by the New Jersey Supreme
Court in James v. Francesco, 61 N.J. 480,
485 (1972),
"a judgment is
void if there has been a failure to comply with a requirement which is a
condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court."
Here, there have been
multiple failures to comply with state-mandated requirements prior to entering
a judgment for possession or writ. I am
urging you to do the right thing and officially void the judgment for
possession and/or the writ.
THE
WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE EX-PARTE WRIT OF POSSESSION THE SAME DATE THE
JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v.
Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J.
311 (1979)
ATF
Defendants engaged in "knowing concealment, suppression and omission of
material facts," and made a false representation of fact and law which the
Chancery Court and the Mercer County Clerk relied upon. Former Judge Hochberg also coerced by the
fraudulent certifications of the Defendants into dismissing the timely filed
Section 1983 suit in 2012.
Plaintiff
has demonstrated that he had several cognizable equitable (Stephanatos fully
owned the property valued at $475K, while the alleged unlawful tax lien was
less than $20K) and property interests (i.e., the tenancy at sufferance and the
presence of two businesses in the premises) under New Jersey law of which he
could not have been deprived without due process.
It
is well-established that where former owners of real property remain in
possession after a foreclosure sale, they become tenants at
sufferance. See In
re Atlantic Business & Community Corporation 901 F.2d at 328 (3rd
Cir. 1990) where the Third Circuit stated that a tenancy at sufferance creates
a property interest that is protected by federal and state laws and the U.S.
Constitution.
See the definition of tenant in the
New Jersey statutes: "Tenant"
includes, but is not limited to, a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or
for any duration, or any subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the
lessee or tenant. Title 46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction,
chapter 14, eviction generally. 46A:14-1:
Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what is included. New Jersey law considers a homeowner who
remains in a home lost to foreclosure to be a tenant at sufferance. We have found that a tenant at sufferance is
"'one who comes into possession of
land by lawful title, usually by virtue of a lease for a definite period, and
after the expiration of the period of the lease holds over without any fresh
leave from the owner.'" Xerox Corp. v. Listmark Computer Sys., 142 N.J.
Super. 232, 240 (App. Div. 1976) (citing Standard Realty Co. v. Gates, 99 N.J.
Eq. 271, 275 (Ch. 1926)). WA GOLF
COMPANY, LLC v. ARMORED, INC, Appellate Division, August 6, 2014.
The
ATF Defendants fraudulently certified to state and federal courts that
Stephanatos had no possessory rights.
No motion and notice was provided to
Stephanatos for substituting the foreclosing plaintiff ATF, LLC to ATFH Real
Property, LLC. As a result, ATFH Real
Property, LLC lacked the standing to apply for final judgment and to apply for
a writ of possession from the office of foreclosure.
Furthermore, as the New Jersey Supreme
Court has ruled, in HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979). Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was
not), the clerk had no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the
same day the judgment was entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary
dispossess proceedings "[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the
expiration of 3 days after entry of judgment for possession."
THE
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION WAS ALSO ENTERED UNLAWFULLY BECAUSE NO NOTICE
TO QUIT WAS PROVIDED TO STEPHANATOS PRIOR TO ENTERING THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE FINAL
JUDGMENT ON MAY 13, 2011
The following language was entered
into that judgment by the conspirator Robert Del Vecchio:
“AND IT IS FURTHER
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff dully recover against the said
defendant …possession of the premises… and that a Writ of Possession issue
thereon”.
There was
no hearing on property possession. Possession is the subject matter of
the Law Division. This case was not a mortgage foreclosure. It was
a tax lien foreclosure.
Furthermore, my small business, Metropolitan Environmental Services was
located in the premises, a legal tenant.
The order you signed did not call for the removal of my business from
the property. Why did you do it?
The
question to you is: why was that language was entered by the Office of
Foreclosure that has no jurisdiction over contested cases? Why there was no compliance with 2A:18-56. Proof
of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment, the Summary Dispossess
Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 (for me/family)
and no compliance with the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq. that was applicable to the legal tenant
of the premises, Metropolitan Environmental Services.
State law requires that prior to the
issuance of a judgment for possession, the owner must provide proof of notice
to quit, followed by an eviction proceeding before a judge who has jurisdiction
over the property and the person. Here
are the state statutes:
2A:18-56. Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment
No judgment for possession in cases specified in paragraph
"a." of section 2A:18-53 of this Title
shall be ordered unless:
- The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
- The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
- The tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and
- It shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein required has been given.
Note: Unlike residential tenants,
who are mostly protected by the Anti-Eviction Act, commercial tenants (like
Metropolitan Engineering Services, PC and Metropolitan Environmental Services)
may be evicted at the end of their lease terms. However, a Notice to Quit is
still required before the eviction action may be filed. No such notice was ever provided. That the eviction of Stephanatos’ businesses
from the property was unlawful.
The landlord-tenant law
also requires the same notice for removal of residential tenants (like Dr.
Stephanatos):
2A:18-61.2 Removal of
residential tenants; required notice; contents; service.
No judgment of
possession shall be entered for any premises covered by section 2 of this act,
except in the nonpayment of rent under subsection a. or f. of section 2, unless
the landlord has made written demand and given written notice for delivery of
possession of the premises.
Here,
no notice to quit and no eviction hearing ever took place. What the conspirator Robert Del Vecchio did
was to include language in the judgment for foreclosure order that also
included a judgment for possession, without any notice for such possession
hearing ever provided to Stephanatos, as is required by state law: 2A:18-56. Proof
of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment.
HOUSING
AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979). Here, the antitrust conspirator Robert
Del Vecchio, failed to provide the requisite notice to quit and the Clerk,
pursuant to NJSA 2A:18-56 and 2A:18-61.2
had no jurisdiction to enter the language of the judgment for possession into
the final foreclosure judgment.
Thus,
this negligent or intentional violation of state law represents a violation of
Stephanatos’ procedural due process rights for both the judgment for possession
and the writ of possession.
WHEREFORE, Basilis N. Stephanatos requests this Court and/or the Clerk of the
Superior Court to officially void the illegal writ of possession entered on May
13, 2011 in violation of N.J.S.A.
2A:18-57 that provides that in summary dispossess proceedings "[n]o
warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after entry of
judgment for possession." HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979). Even if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was
not), the clerk had no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the
same day the judgment was entered.
Basilis N. Stephanatos also requests this Court to void the
judgment for possession language entered on May 13, 2011, because it was in
violation of 2A:18-56. Proof
of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment and/or 2A:18-61.2 Removal of residential tenants; required
notice; contents; service.
No judgment of
possession shall be entered for any premises covered by section 2 of this act,
except in the nonpayment of rent under subsection a. or f. of section 2, unless
the landlord has made written demand and given written notice for delivery of
possession of the premises.
Thank you in
advance for your consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Very
Truly Yours,
 |
Basilis (Bill) N.
Stephanatos, PhD, JD
CERTIFICATION
OF BASILIS N. STEPHANATOS
I hereby certify under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing statements made by me are true and correct. I am aware that if any of the foregoing
statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment. NJ Court Rule R. 1:4-4(b); 28 U.S.C. §1746.
DATE: December
10, 2018
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________________
Basilis
N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
EXHIBIT A
CORRESPONDENCE WITH SVEN PFAHLERT, ESQ
OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE
TO: MICHELLE SMITH, CLERK OF THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE:
Dear Ms. Smith:
Based on the email from Mr. Pfahlert, it is obvious he is
the one who advised the former Clerk and now you to enter an ex-parte judgment
of possession and a subsequent ex-parte writ of possession in the
above-referenced case. The facts are undisputed that it was the Office of
Foreclosure that entered these two ex-parte judgments, based on the incorrect
advice of Mr. Phahlert that the former owner was not protected by the Summary
Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et
seq. Mr. Pfahlert is dead wrong because the law of this state
says that "The owner's continued possession after sale of the
property at execution, judicial, or like sale is that of a tenant at sufferance
of the purchaser”. See Caruso v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div.
1961). To
remove a tenant (including a tenant at sufferance), the summary dispossess act,
N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. must
be followed. Based on the attached email by Mr. Pfahlert, he advised you
that a former owner is not protected by the tenancy laws of this state – which
is a very wrong and very illegal advice.
The State’s own law revision commission states the following:
Since enactment of
the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the Summary Dispossess Act,
N.J.S.
2A:18-53 et seq. has been understood to cover the eviction of
nonresidential tenants and residential tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction
Act. Source: STATE OF NEW JERSEY, NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION
COMMISSION, Final Report Relating to Landlord and Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.
This tenancy at sufferance is included in the definition
of tenant in the New Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is
not limited to, a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any
duration, or any subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or
tenant. Title 46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14,
eviction generally. 46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental
premises; what is included.
Here is some of the case law of New Jersey:
Under New Jersey law, "[a] purchaser at
a mortgage foreclosure sale obtains the legal right to possession of land
purchased as soon as he obtains a deed from the selling officer." 30 New
Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 373. The mortgagor's continued possession
of the property after such time is that of a tenant at sufferance. See Caruso
v. Hunt, 69 N.J.Super. 447, 452, 174 A.2d 381 (Ch.Div. 1961)
(quoting 2 C.J.S. Adverse Possession § 105, page 659) ("The owner's
continued possession after sale of the property at execution, judicial, or like
sale is that of a tenant at sufferance of the purchaser”). In Re St. Clair,
251 B.R. 660 (D.N.J. 2000).
What your Office of Foreclosure did was to then believe
Mr. Pfahlert’s incorrect and illegal advice and enter an ex-parte judgment for
possession without the prerequisite notices. You then entered the very
same day an ex-parte writ for possession again in violation of the state
statutes requiring notice to quit or vacate. You also violated state law
that says you cannot enter a writ the same day you entered a judgment. To
make matters worse, the judgment was entered by Judge Jacobson who had neither
personal nor subject matter jurisdiction over Stephanatos or the property.
Furthermore, state case law clearly states that an LLC
(here ATFH Real Property, LLC ) is not eligible to take possession of a
residential property.
You have broken several state laws. I am asking
that you obtain an advice of somebody else other than Mr. Pfahlert because he
has led you to a wrong path and you have caused damages not only to me, but to
hundreds or even thousands of residential tenants (at sufferance or not).
DEAR LEGISLATORS:
Please see what these people at the Office of
Foreclosure have done. They have violated several state laws and are
refusing to correct their wrongdoings. I am asking for an official
investigation to protect tenants at residential properties (including tenants
at sufferance).
Very Truly Yours,
Basilis (Bill) N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
Tel.: (201) 366-4588
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: bstephanatos@gmail.com
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail message and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are the
intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information
may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you
in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete
this message and any attachments from any computer.
From: Bill Stephanatos [mailto:bstephanatos@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 4:25 PM
To: 'Sven Pfahlert'; 'Michelle Smith'; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov
Cc: 'Irene Komandis'; SenVanDrew@njleg.org; AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org; AsmLand@njleg.org; SenBrown@njleg.org; AsmMazzeo@njleg.org; AsmArmato@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org; AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org; AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; AsmMoriarty@njleg.org; AswMosquera@njleg.org; SenCruzPerez@njleg.org; AswEganJones@njleg.org; AsmSpearman@njleg.org; SenBeach@njleg.org; AsmGreenwald@njleg.org; AswLampitt@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org; AsmConaway@njleg.org; AswMurphy@njleg.org; SenAddiego@njleg.org; AsmHowarth@njleg.org; AsmPeters@njleg.org; SenConnors@njleg.org; AsmRumpf@njleg.org; AswGove@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; AsmWolfe@njleg.org; AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org; SenGopal@njleg.org; AswDowney@njleg.org; AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org; AsmClifton@njleg.org; AsmDancer@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org; AswHandlin@njleg.org; AswDiMaso@njleg.org; SenGreenstein@njleg.org; AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org; AsmBenson@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org; AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org; SenBateman@njleg.org; AsmFreiman@njleg.org; AsmZwicker@njleg.org; SenBSmith@njleg.org; AsmDanielsen@njleg.org; AsmEgan@njleg.org; SenDiegnan@njleg.org; AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org; AswPinkin@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; AsmCoughlin@njleg.org; AswLopez@njleg.org; SenCryan@njleg.org; AswQuijano@njleg.org; AsmHolley@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org; AsmBramnick@njleg.org; AswMunoz@njleg.org; SenScutari@njleg.org; AswCarter@njleg.org; AsmKennedy@njleg.org; SenDoherty@njleg.org; AsmDiMaio@njleg.org; AsmPeterson@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; AsmSpace@njleg.org; AsmWirths@njleg.org; SenBucco@njleg.org; AsmCarroll@njleg.org; AsmBucco@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org; AsmWebber@njleg.org; AswDecroce@njleg.org; SenCodey@njleg.org; AswJasey@njleg.org; AsmMcKeon@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org; AsmCaputo@njleg.org; AswTucker@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; AswPintorMarin@njleg.org; AswSpeight@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Importance: High
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 4:25 PM
To: 'Sven Pfahlert'; 'Michelle Smith'; mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov
Cc: 'Irene Komandis'; SenVanDrew@njleg.org; AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org; AsmLand@njleg.org; SenBrown@njleg.org; AsmMazzeo@njleg.org; AsmArmato@njleg.org; SenSweeney@njleg.org; AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org; AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org; SenMadden@njleg.org; AsmMoriarty@njleg.org; AswMosquera@njleg.org; SenCruzPerez@njleg.org; AswEganJones@njleg.org; AsmSpearman@njleg.org; SenBeach@njleg.org; AsmGreenwald@njleg.org; AswLampitt@njleg.org; SenSingleton@njleg.org; AsmConaway@njleg.org; AswMurphy@njleg.org; SenAddiego@njleg.org; AsmHowarth@njleg.org; AsmPeters@njleg.org; SenConnors@njleg.org; AsmRumpf@njleg.org; AswGove@njleg.org; SenHolzapfel@njleg.org; AsmWolfe@njleg.org; AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org; SenGopal@njleg.org; AswDowney@njleg.org; AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org; SenThompson@njleg.org; AsmClifton@njleg.org; AsmDancer@njleg.org; SenOscanlon@njleg.org; AswHandlin@njleg.org; AswDiMaso@njleg.org; SenGreenstein@njleg.org; AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org; AsmBenson@njleg.org; SenTurner@njleg.org; AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org; SenBateman@njleg.org; AsmFreiman@njleg.org; AsmZwicker@njleg.org; SenBSmith@njleg.org; AsmDanielsen@njleg.org; AsmEgan@njleg.org; SenDiegnan@njleg.org; AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org; AswPinkin@njleg.org; SenVitale@njleg.org; AsmCoughlin@njleg.org; AswLopez@njleg.org; SenCryan@njleg.org; AswQuijano@njleg.org; AsmHolley@njleg.org; SenKean@njleg.org; AsmBramnick@njleg.org; AswMunoz@njleg.org; SenScutari@njleg.org; AswCarter@njleg.org; AsmKennedy@njleg.org; SenDoherty@njleg.org; AsmDiMaio@njleg.org; AsmPeterson@njleg.org; SenOroho@njleg.org; AsmSpace@njleg.org; AsmWirths@njleg.org; SenBucco@njleg.org; AsmCarroll@njleg.org; AsmBucco@njleg.org; SenPennacchio@njleg.org; AsmWebber@njleg.org; AswDecroce@njleg.org; SenCodey@njleg.org; AswJasey@njleg.org; AsmMcKeon@njleg.org; SenRice@njleg.org; AsmCaputo@njleg.org; AswTucker@njleg.org; SenRuiz@njleg.org; AswPintorMarin@njleg.org; AswSpeight@njleg.org; SenSinger@njleg.org
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Importance: High
Dear Clerk of the Office of
Foreclosure.
Here is the law of this state, as is stated
very clearly by the State’s own law revision commission:
Since
enactment of the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61.1 et seq., the Summary
Dispossess Act, N.J.S. 2A:18-53 et seq. has
been understood to cover the eviction of nonresidential tenants and residential
tenants not covered by the Anti-Eviction Act. Source: STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION, Final Report Relating to Landlord and
Tenant Law, February 10, 2012.
You took the advice of this person Pfalhert
and issued a judgment and a writ FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY without any
notice to quit and without any hearing and without any jurisdiction.
Pflalert claims that the anti-eviction act was not applicable to my residential
property. However, if the anti-eviction act was not applicable, then the
Summary Dispossess Act, N.J.S.
2A:18-53 et seq. covers the residential tenants not covered by the
Anti-Eviction. Just read what the law commission wrote.
How many more people have been injured by
these reckless actions of your office?
I AM COPYING THE LEGISLATORS SO THAT THEY
SEE THE EXTREME INCOMPETENCE OF THE PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE OF FORECLOSURE.
Hopefully they will intervene and correct this atrocity and travesty of the
law.
Very Truly Yours,
Basilis (Bill) N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
Tel.: (201) 366-4588
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: bstephanatos@gmail.com
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail message and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are the
intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal
information may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been
addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail
and then delete this message and any attachments from any computer.
From: Bill Stephanatos [mailto:bstephanatos@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 4:11 PM
To: 'Sven Pfahlert'; 'Michelle Smith'; 'mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov'
Cc: 'Irene Komandis'; 'SenVanDrew@njleg.org'; 'AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org'; 'AsmLand@njleg.org'; 'SenBrown@njleg.org'; 'AsmMazzeo@njleg.org'; 'AsmArmato@njleg.org'; 'SenSweeney@njleg.org'; 'AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org'; 'AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org'; 'SenMadden@njleg.org'; 'AsmMoriarty@njleg.org'; 'AswMosquera@njleg.org'; 'SenCruzPerez@njleg.org'; 'AswEganJones@njleg.org'; 'AsmSpearman@njleg.org'; 'SenBeach@njleg.org'; 'AsmGreenwald@njleg.org'; 'AswLampitt@njleg.org'; 'SenSingleton@njleg.org'; 'AsmConaway@njleg.org'; 'AswMurphy@njleg.org'; 'SenAddiego@njleg.org'; 'AsmHowarth@njleg.org'; 'AsmPeters@njleg.org'; 'SenConnors@njleg.org'; 'AsmRumpf@njleg.org'; 'AswGove@njleg.org'; 'SenHolzapfel@njleg.org'; 'AsmWolfe@njleg.org'; 'AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org'; 'SenGopal@njleg.org'; 'AswDowney@njleg.org'; 'AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org'; 'SenThompson@njleg.org'; 'AsmClifton@njleg.org'; 'AsmDancer@njleg.org'; 'SenOscanlon@njleg.org'; 'AswHandlin@njleg.org'; 'AswDiMaso@njleg.org'; 'SenGreenstein@njleg.org'; 'AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org'; 'AsmBenson@njleg.org'; 'SenTurner@njleg.org'; 'AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org'; 'SenBateman@njleg.org'; 'AsmFreiman@njleg.org'; 'AsmZwicker@njleg.org'; 'SenBSmith@njleg.org'; 'AsmDanielsen@njleg.org'; 'AsmEgan@njleg.org'; 'SenDiegnan@njleg.org'; 'AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org'; 'AswPinkin@njleg.org'; 'SenVitale@njleg.org'; 'AsmCoughlin@njleg.org'; 'AswLopez@njleg.org'; 'SenCryan@njleg.org'; 'AswQuijano@njleg.org'; 'AsmHolley@njleg.org'; 'SenKean@njleg.org'; 'AsmBramnick@njleg.org'; 'AswMunoz@njleg.org'; 'SenScutari@njleg.org'; 'AswCarter@njleg.org'; 'AsmKennedy@njleg.org'; 'SenDoherty@njleg.org'; 'AsmDiMaio@njleg.org'; 'AsmPeterson@njleg.org'; 'SenOroho@njleg.org'; 'AsmSpace@njleg.org'; 'AsmWirths@njleg.org'; 'SenBucco@njleg.org'; 'AsmCarroll@njleg.org'; 'AsmBucco@njleg.org'; 'SenPennacchio@njleg.org'; 'AsmWebber@njleg.org'; 'AswDecroce@njleg.org'; 'SenCodey@njleg.org'; 'AswJasey@njleg.org'; 'AsmMcKeon@njleg.org'; 'SenRice@njleg.org'; 'AsmCaputo@njleg.org'; 'AswTucker@njleg.org'; 'SenRuiz@njleg.org'; 'AswPintorMarin@njleg.org'; 'AswSpeight@njleg.org'; 'SenSinger@njleg.org'
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Importance: High
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 4:11 PM
To: 'Sven Pfahlert'; 'Michelle Smith'; 'mary.jacobson@njcourts.gov'
Cc: 'Irene Komandis'; 'SenVanDrew@njleg.org'; 'AsmAndrzejczak@njleg.org'; 'AsmLand@njleg.org'; 'SenBrown@njleg.org'; 'AsmMazzeo@njleg.org'; 'AsmArmato@njleg.org'; 'SenSweeney@njleg.org'; 'AsmBurzichelli@njleg.org'; 'AsmTaliaferro@njleg.org'; 'SenMadden@njleg.org'; 'AsmMoriarty@njleg.org'; 'AswMosquera@njleg.org'; 'SenCruzPerez@njleg.org'; 'AswEganJones@njleg.org'; 'AsmSpearman@njleg.org'; 'SenBeach@njleg.org'; 'AsmGreenwald@njleg.org'; 'AswLampitt@njleg.org'; 'SenSingleton@njleg.org'; 'AsmConaway@njleg.org'; 'AswMurphy@njleg.org'; 'SenAddiego@njleg.org'; 'AsmHowarth@njleg.org'; 'AsmPeters@njleg.org'; 'SenConnors@njleg.org'; 'AsmRumpf@njleg.org'; 'AswGove@njleg.org'; 'SenHolzapfel@njleg.org'; 'AsmWolfe@njleg.org'; 'AsmMcGuckin@njleg.org'; 'SenGopal@njleg.org'; 'AswDowney@njleg.org'; 'AsmHoughtaling@njleg.org'; 'SenThompson@njleg.org'; 'AsmClifton@njleg.org'; 'AsmDancer@njleg.org'; 'SenOscanlon@njleg.org'; 'AswHandlin@njleg.org'; 'AswDiMaso@njleg.org'; 'SenGreenstein@njleg.org'; 'AsmDeAngelo@njleg.org'; 'AsmBenson@njleg.org'; 'SenTurner@njleg.org'; 'AswReynoldsJackson@njleg.org'; 'SenBateman@njleg.org'; 'AsmFreiman@njleg.org'; 'AsmZwicker@njleg.org'; 'SenBSmith@njleg.org'; 'AsmDanielsen@njleg.org'; 'AsmEgan@njleg.org'; 'SenDiegnan@njleg.org'; 'AsmKarabinchak@njleg.org'; 'AswPinkin@njleg.org'; 'SenVitale@njleg.org'; 'AsmCoughlin@njleg.org'; 'AswLopez@njleg.org'; 'SenCryan@njleg.org'; 'AswQuijano@njleg.org'; 'AsmHolley@njleg.org'; 'SenKean@njleg.org'; 'AsmBramnick@njleg.org'; 'AswMunoz@njleg.org'; 'SenScutari@njleg.org'; 'AswCarter@njleg.org'; 'AsmKennedy@njleg.org'; 'SenDoherty@njleg.org'; 'AsmDiMaio@njleg.org'; 'AsmPeterson@njleg.org'; 'SenOroho@njleg.org'; 'AsmSpace@njleg.org'; 'AsmWirths@njleg.org'; 'SenBucco@njleg.org'; 'AsmCarroll@njleg.org'; 'AsmBucco@njleg.org'; 'SenPennacchio@njleg.org'; 'AsmWebber@njleg.org'; 'AswDecroce@njleg.org'; 'SenCodey@njleg.org'; 'AswJasey@njleg.org'; 'AsmMcKeon@njleg.org'; 'SenRice@njleg.org'; 'AsmCaputo@njleg.org'; 'AswTucker@njleg.org'; 'SenRuiz@njleg.org'; 'AswPintorMarin@njleg.org'; 'AswSpeight@njleg.org'; 'SenSinger@njleg.org'
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Importance: High
THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN POSSESSION
BY ME AND MY FAMILY. THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE SPECIFIC
STATUTES REGULATE THE POSSESSION. WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, IS GENERAL
STATUTES FOR UNCONTESTED PROPERTIES WHERE NOBODY LIVES IN THE HOME. GET A
GRIP ON THE LAW. Just from your response alone I believe you are the
person responsible for this.
You are missing the whole
point. Even if what you are saying is legally correct (which is not), the
Clerk had no jurisdiction to enter the writ the same day as the final judgment.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81
N.J. 311 (1979).
See the definition of tenant in
the New Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is not limited to,
a lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any duration, or any
subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or tenant. Title
46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14, eviction
generally. 46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what
is included.
Furthermore, former owners become tenants at
sufferance and legal process is required to evict them. The term tenants
under New Jersey law includes a tenant at sufferance.
THIS WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WHERE
SPECIFIC STATUTES REGULATE THE POSSESSION. WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, IS
GENERAL STATUTES FOR UNCONTESTED NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WHERE NOBODY LIVES
IN THE HOME. GET A GRIP ON THE LAW.
Regarding the judgment for possession, do you
have any proof of the required notice to quit? How could you even issue a
judgment for possession without any notice to quit and without any
hearing? The New Jersey Supreme Court said that the judgment was not
valid in the case I referenced: HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979).
Every state requires legal proceedings prior
to entering a judgment for possession or writ. See for example:
It is also true that under Georgia law, “[w]here
former owners of real property remain in possession after a foreclosure sale,
they become tenants at sufferance.” Steed v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Corp., 689
S.E.2d 843, 848 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). When this occurs, a landlord-tenant
relationship exists between the legal title holder and a tenant at sufferance,
and dispossessory procedures set forth in O.C.G.A. § 44-7-50 provide the
exclusive method by which a landlord may evict the tenant. Steed, 689 S.E.2d at
848.
What you did was not only reckless and
illegal, but you are trying to cover up your wrongdoing and by refusing to
comply with the law of the state. Failure to perfom the official duties
or failure to comply with the law is a crime in this State.
THE WRIT OF POSSESSION WAS VOID AB INITIO
BECAUSE THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE
EX-PARTE WRIT OF POSSESSION THE SAME DAME THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al.,
406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979)
ATF
Defendants engaged in "knowing concealment, suppression and omission of
material facts," and made a false representation of fact and law which the
Chancery Court and the Mercer County Clerk relied upon. Former Judge
Hochberg also coerced by the fraudulent certifications of the Defendants into
dismissing the timely filed Section 1983 suit in 2012.
Plaintiff has
demonstrated that he had several cognizable equitable and property interests
under New Jersey law of which he could not have been deprived without due
process.
It is
well-established that where former owners of real property remain in possession
after a foreclosure sale, they become tenants
at sufferance. See In re
Atlantic Business & Community Corporation 901 F.2d at 328 (3rd
Cir. 1990) where the Third Circuit stated that a tenancy at sufferance creates
a property interest that is protected by federal and state laws and the U.S.
Constitution.
See the definition of tenant in the
New Jersey statutes: "Tenant" includes, but is not limited to, a
lessee or tenant at will or at sufferance or for any duration, or any
subtenants, assigns, or legal representatives of the lessee or tenant. Title
46A – Landlord and tenant law. Article 5, eviction, chapter 14, eviction
generally. 46A:14-1: Tenant, landlord, residential rental premises; what
is included. New Jersey law considers a homeowner who remains in a
home lost to foreclosure to be a tenant at sufferance. We have found that
a tenant at sufferance is "'one who comes into possession of land by
lawful title, usually by virtue of a lease for a definite period, and after the
expiration of the period of the lease holds over without any fresh leave from
the owner.'" Xerox Corp. v. Listmark Computer Sys., 142 N.J. Super. 232,
240 (App. Div. 1976) (citing Standard Realty Co. v. Gates, 99 N.J. Eq. 271, 275
(Ch. 1926)). WA GOLF COMPANY, LLC v. ARMORED, INC, Appellate Division,
August 6, 2014.
The
ATF Defendants fraudulently certified to state and federal courts that
Stephanatos had no possessory rights, when he was at a minimum a tenant at
sufferance (at the very worst). And he also had superior equitable title
because he fully owned his property valued at $475K while the alleged tax was
$20K.
No motion and notice was provided to
Stephanatos for substituting the foreclosing plaintiff ATF, LLC to ATFH Real
Property, LLC. As a result, ATFH Real Property, LLC lacked the standing
to apply for final judgment and to apply for a writ of possession from the
office of foreclosure.
Furthermore, as the New Jersey Supreme
Court has ruled, in HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF
WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al., 406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979). Even
if the judgment had been entered lawfully (we hold it was not), the clerk had
no *316 jurisdiction to issue the warrant of removal the same day the judgment
was entered. N.J.S.A. 2A:18-57 provides that in summary dispossess proceedings
"[n]o warrant of removal shall issue until the expiration of 3 days after
entry of judgment for possession."
THE EX-PARTE JUDGMENT FOR POSSESSION WAS ALSO
ENTERED UNLAWFULLY BECAUSE NO NOTICE TO QUIT WAS PROVIDED TO STEPHANATOS PRIOR
TO ENTERING THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON MAY 13, 2011
State law requires that prior to the
issuance of a judgment for possession, the owner must provide proof of notice
to quit, followed by an eviction proceeding before a judge who has jurisdiction
over the property and the person. Here are the state statutes:
2A:18-56. Proof of notice to quit
prerequisite to judgment
No judgment for possession in cases specified
in paragraph "a." of section 2A:18-53 of this Title shall
be ordered unless:
- The tenancy, if a tenancy at will or from year to year, has been terminated by the giving of 3 months' notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
- The tenancy, if a tenancy from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of 1 month's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; or
- The tenancy, if for a term other than at will, from year to year, or from month to month, has been terminated by the giving of one term's notice to quit, which notice shall be deemed to be sufficient; and
- It shall be shown to the satisfaction of the court by due proof that the notice herein required has been given.
Note: Unlike residential tenants, who are
mostly protected by the Anti-Eviction Act, commercial tenants (like
Metropolitan Engineering Services, PC and Metropolitan Environmental Services)
may be evicted at the end of their lease terms. However, a Notice to Quit is
still required before the eviction action may be filed. No such notice
was ever provided. That the eviction of Stephanatos’ businesses from the
property was unlawful.
The landlord-tenant law
also requires the same notice for removal of residential tenants (like Dr.
Stephanatos):
2A:18-61.2 Removal of
residential tenants; required notice; contents; service.
No judgment of possession shall be
entered for any premises covered by section 2 of this act, except in the
nonpayment of rent under subsection a. or f. of section 2, unless the landlord
has made written demand and given written notice for delivery of possession of
the premises.
Here, no notice to
quit and no eviction hearing ever took place. What the conspirator Robert
Del Vecchio did was to include language in the judgment for foreclosure order
that also included a judgment for possession, without any notice for such
possession hearing ever provided to Stephanatos, as is required by state law: 2A:18-56.
Proof of notice to quit prerequisite to judgment. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF WILDWOOD v. Hayward, et al.,
406 A.2d 1318, 81 N.J. 311 (1979).
The state law
N.J.S.A. 2A:39-1 cited by Judge Jacobson, prohibits the
unlawful entry in any real property occupied solely as a residence by the
party in possession, unless the entry and detention is made pursuant to
legal process as set out in N.J.S.A. 2A:18-53 et seq. The
Defendants failed to do so and instead circumvented that statutory process and
applied for an ex-parte writ.
Thus, this
intentional violation of state law represents a violation of Stephanatos’
procedural due process rights for both the judgment for possession and the writ
of possession. Since the Defendants’ lawyers certified (i.e. swore under
oath) to Judge Hochberg that “all the proceedings were done in accordance with
the law”, they lied to that judge, successfully coerced the judge into
dismissing the timely-filed suit and therefore committed fraud on the court.
Very Truly Yours,
Basilis (Bill) N. Stephanatos, PhD, PE, JD
Tel.: (201) 366-4588
Tel.: (973) 897-8162
Fax: (973) 810-0440
E-mail: bstephanatos@gmail.com
E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail message and any
attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are the
intended recipient, be aware that your use of any confidential or personal information
may be restricted by state and federal privacy laws. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you
in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete
this message and any attachments from any computer.
From: Sven Pfahlert [mailto:sven.pfahlert@njcourts.gov]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 3:25 PM
To: bstephanatos@gmail.com
Cc: Irene Komandis
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2018 3:25 PM
To: bstephanatos@gmail.com
Cc: Irene Komandis
Subject: RE: MOTION TO VACATE THE VOID WRIT ENTERED ON MAY 13, 2011- F-9241-09
Mr. Stephanatos,
As I have indicated to you in prior
communications, the writ of possession was issued pursuant to R.
4:59-2(b) which states that “If an order or judgment is for the possession of
real or personal property, the party in whose favor it is entered is, on
application to the clerk, entitled as of course to a writ of possession....”
The New Jersey Anti-Eviction Act applies to tenants, not prior property owners.
N.J.S.A. 2A:18-51 et seq and cited case law refer to
landlord/tenant proceedings. The Office of Foreclosure will take no action in
this matter absent a judge’s order. Please be guided accordingly.
Sven E. Pfahlert, Esq.
Administrative Office of the Courts
Superior Court Clerk’s Office
25 Market Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
This email, including accompanying
attachments, may contain confidential information. Furthermore, the email
may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other
legal rules. This information is intended only for the use of the sender
and recipient or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this emailed
information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in
error, please immediately notify the sender of the error by reply email.