payment claim in New Jersey

2020Dover-Chester, 419 N.J.

2020Dover-Chester, 419 N.J.

2022For a covenant to create a lien right in a homeowners' association, the "property owner must have A-2859-20 12 adequate notice." Id. at 112 .

2022Such liens combine "a legally cognizable debt and a binding agreement to subject property to the payment of that claim." Ibid.

2022On appeal, one of the plaintiffs relied on the partial payment rule to argue that in the case of an "ordinary running account," each payment to reduce the balance of the "account may be considered as a partial payment or acknowledgement of a counter demand." Id. at 375 .

2022Country Club misstated the partial payment rule, plaintiffs cite to the following: (1) Deluxe Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hyundai Eng'g & Const. Co., Ltd., 254 N.J.

2022Country Club v. Midlantic Nat'l Bank S., 223 N.J.

2022The Reaffirmation Agreement did not even detail a partial payment plan." We agree with the trial court that the Reaffirmation Agreement did not satisfy the conditions of the partial payment rule because it does not " support the implication of a promise to pay the full amount due immediately or on demand.'" Genova, 193 F. Supp. 3d at 369 .

2021In considering the request, the court devised a three-prong test for determining if equitable relief in the form of relaxation of the payment requirement was appropriate: “At a minimum, it would seem that such circumstances must be (1) beyond the control of the property owner, not self-imposed; (2) unattributed to poor judgment, a bad investment or a failed business venture, and (3) reasonably unforeseeable.” Id. at 336 .

2011This plain language is clear evidence that (a) our Legislature consciously provided a finite period to claim repayment of excess payments and, (b) defined when that period commences." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 54:35-10).

1996Partnership v. Bloomfield Tp., 15 N.J.Tax 409 (Tax 1995), dismissal by the Tax Court of an appeal to it from the county board would be warranted, based upon the county board dismissal, even though N.J.S.A. 54:51A-3 grants an express dispensation from the same payment requirement as imposed by N.J.S.A 54:51A-1(b).

1984Assoc. v. Hamilton Tp., 190 N.J.Super. 63 , 461 A.2d 1199 (App.Div.1983), the Appellate Division had occasion to consider whether the payment requirement under N.J.

1984Assoc. v. Hamilton Tp., 190 N.J.Super. 63 , 461 A.2d 1199 (App.Div.1983), the Appellate Division had occasion to consider whether the payment requirement under N.J.

1983Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954); Alboum v. City of Newark, 22 N.J. 571 , 126 A. 2d 885 (1956).

1983Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954); Alboum v. City of Newark, 22 N.J. 571 , 126 A. 2d 885 (1956).

1983Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954); Alboum v. City of Newark, 22 N.J. 571 , 126 A. 2d 885 (1956).

1983Alton v. Alton, 347 U.S. 610 , 74 S.Ct. 736 , 98 L.Ed. 987 (1954); Alboum v. City of Newark, 22 N.J. 571 , 126 A. 2d 885 (1956).

1980Perini Corp. v. First Nat'l Bank of Habersham Cty., 553 F. 2d 398, 404 (5 Cir.1977), reh. den. 557 F. 2d 823 (1977).

1950So, where a creditor has collateral security for his claim, he may prosecute simultaneously whatever actions in law or equity he may have on the principal or collateral obligations; and a creditor who holds several securities for the same debt has the right to realize the payment of his claim from any of them." Rossiter v. Merriman, 80 Kan. 739 , 104 P. 858 ( Sup. Ct. 1909).

1950So, where a creditor has collateral security for his claim, he may prosecute simultaneously whatever actions in law or equity he may have on the principal or collateral obligations; and a creditor who holds several securities for the same debt has the right to realize the payment of his claim from any of them." Rossiter v. Merriman, 80 Kan. 739 , 104 P. 858 ( Sup. Ct. 1909).

1934Any amount paid by a joint tort-feasor which is not paid and received as a full settlement of the claim, is to go only as a payment on the claim for damages, and is not a bar to suit against any other joint tort-feasor.” In McDonald v. Goddard Grocery Co., 184 Mo. App. 432 ; 171 S. W.

1934Any amount paid by a joint tort-feasor which is not paid and received as a full settlement of the claim, is to go only as a payment on the claim for damages, and is not a bar to suit against any other joint tort-feasor.” In McDonald v. Goddard Grocery Co., 184 Mo. App. 432 ; 171 S. W.

1907The justice of the rule has been so strongly felt that it has been recognized and adopted even in a court of law, as in the ease of Amory v. Francis, 16 Mass. 308 .” Thus it appears that the chancellor rested his determination, first, upon Greenwood v. Taylor, supra, which has since been overruled in England, and upon the Massachusetts Case cited, which is not recognized an authority for the rule applied, and certainly the dictum, “for the property pledged is in fact security for no more of the debt than its value will amount to,” is no longer esteemed to be a correct statement of the law, for

1891Corp. § 424 says : “There can be no doubt that any corporation may enter into a compromise,, and the payment of a claim by the agents of a corporation in good faith, for-the purpose of avoiding-litigation, will not be held unauthorized merely-because the claim was not a just one.” In First National Bank v. National Exchange Bank, 92 U. S. 122 (at p. 127), the court says: “ Compromise to avoid or reduce losses are oftentimes the necessary results of this condition of things.

1889In Smith v. Craft, 11 Biss. 340 , it was held, that if a creditor asked admission after the court had announced its decision he should only be admitted on condition that the payment of his claim was postponed to that of the complainant.

1884They do not interfere with the parties’ common law right to compromise, Chadbourn v. Chadbourn, 9 Allen 173 ; Chouteau v. Suyddm, 21 N. F. 179; Childs v. Updyke, 9 Ohio St. 333 .—Rep. ■ The appellants further object to the allowance of the claim on the ground that they, being interested in the estate (they are residuary legatees), notified the executors that they were opposed to the payment of the claim, and they insist that the executors having settled it after such notification, without its having been previously established by suit, cannot lawfully obtain allowance for it.