Zeus Realty Co. v. Jaral Realty, Inc., 653 A.2d 70 (R.I. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Zeus Realty Co. v. Jaral Realty, Inc., 653 A.2d 70 (R.I. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“this ourt has enunciated the principle that equity disfavors the forfeiture of real property.”
9 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Westconnaug Recovery Company, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for ARMT 2007-2 (ri, 2023-03-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Westconnaug Recovery Company, LLC v. U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for ARMT 2007-2
R.I. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
this ourt has enunciated the principle that equity disfavors the forfeiture of real property.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rachel Rafaelian v. Perfecto Iron Works, Inc.
R.I. · 2013 · confidence medium
The trial justice likely was referring to Zeus Realty Co. v. Jaral Realty, Inc., 653 A.2d 70, 70 (R.I.1995), where a plaintiff in an unsuccessful appeal sought to overturn a Superior Court order vacating an entry of default based upon the finding "that the plaintiff's notice to the defendants was premature since it was sent prior to the setting of a return day and prior to the presentation of a title examiner’s report to the Superior Court." On appeal, Rafaelian argues that Zeus is inapplicable to her case.
discussed Cited "see" E.T. Investments, LLC v. Thomas C. Riley
R.I. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Zeus, 653 A.2d at 70 (affirming the Superior Court’s judgment vacating a default judgment on a petition to foreclose when notice was given prior to the setting of a return day and prior to presenting a title examiner’s report to the court).
discussed Cited "see" Devine v. Fagan Door Corp., 87-776 (1997)
Sup. Ct. R.I. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See , Murray v. Schillace , 658 A.2d 512 , 514 (R.I. 1995) (finding that sending notice with the former property owner's name spelled as "Shillace" instead of "Schillace", was not so substantial or misleading as to mandate invalidation of a tax title under § 44-9-35 .) See also Zeus Realty Co. v. Jaral Realty , 653 A.2d 70 (R.I. 1995) (per curiam) (where the Supreme Court upheld a superior court order vacating a default judgment which foreclosed rights of redemption to property sold at a tax sale under R.I.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ZEUS REALTY COMPANY
v.
JARAL REALTY, INC.
No. 93-644-Appeal.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
Jan 27, 1995.
653 A.2d 70
Patrick T. Conley, East Providence, for plaintiff., Steven M. Richard, Tillinghast, Collins & Graham, Robert Fine, Licht & Semonoff, Providence, for defendant.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 69%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Rhode Island (1)

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the court for oral argument December 13, 1994, pursuant to an order that had directed the plaintiff, Zeus Realty Company (Zeus), to appear and show cause why this appeal should not be summarily denied and dismissed. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda filed by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown.

Zeus appealed from a Superior Court judgment that vacated a default judgment previously entered against Jaral Realty, Inc., Old Colony Co-Operative Bank d.b.a Citizens Bank, and Citizens Bank and allowed redemption of property sold at a tax sale. The default judgment purported to foreclose the rights of redemption of the defendants. However, a justice of the Superior Court, after hearing, allowed redemption pursuant to G.L.1956 (1988 Reenactment) §§ 44-9-24 and 44-9-29. The trial justice found that the plaintiffs notice to the defendants was premature since it was sent prior to the setting of a return day and prior to the presentation of a title examiner’s report to the Superior Court. The trial justice also held that principles of equity favored redemption in the circumstances of this case because of the enormous difference between the amount paid at the tax sale ($7,575.59) and the assessed value of the property ($201,900). This court has enunciated the principle that equity disfavors the forfeiture of real property. Albertson v. Leca, 447 A.2d 383 (R.I.1982).

For the reasons stated, the plaintiffs appeal is denied and dismissed. The judgment of the Superior Court vacating the judgment of foreclosure and ordering redemption is affirmed.