12 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
VRG Corp. v. GKN Realty Corp.green2 sentences2021Super. 32, 47-48 (App. Div. 2017) (explaining elements of an equitable subrogation claim); VRG Corp. v. GKN A-5334-16T1 31 Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994) (explaining elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action). 2020Super. 32, 47-48 (App. Div. 2017) (explaining elements of an equitable subrogation claim); VRG Corp. v. GKN A-5334-16T1 31 Realty Corp., 135 N.J. 539, 554 (1994) (explaining elements of an unjust enrichment cause of action). | 2 | 2 |
Equity Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Chicago Title Ins.green2 sentences2021Ibid. 2020Ibid. | 1 | 4 |
Culver v. Insurance Co. of North Americagreen1 sentence2019Co. of N. Am., 115 N.J. 451, 456 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat. Bankgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat'l Bank of Fla., 792 So.2d 1222, 1225-27 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001); Bank of N.Y. v. Nally, 820 N.E. 2d 644, 652-54 (Ind.2005); Am. | 1 | 1 |
Bank of New York v. Nallygreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Suntrust Bank v. Riverside Nat'l Bank of Fla., 792 So.2d 1222, 1225-27 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001); Bank of N.Y. v. Nally, 820 N.E. 2d 644, 652-54 (Ind.2005); Am. | 1 | 1 |
Peter v. Travelers Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2000Co., 375 F.Supp. 1347, 1350-51 (D.C.Cal.1974), which held: Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, the duty owed an excess insurer is identical to that owed to the insured. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Montefusco Excavating & Contracting Co. v. County of Middlesex
green
2 sentences2009The doctrine of equitable subrogation is "highly favored in the law." [2] Montefusco Excavating & Contracting Co. v. Middlesex County, 82 N.J. 519, 523 , 414 A. 2d 961 (1980). 2009The doctrine of equitable subrogation is "highly favored in the law." [2] Montefusco Excavating & Contracting Co. v. Middlesex County, 82 N.J. 519, 523 , 414 A. 2d 961 (1980). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
Ocwen Loan Services, LLC v. Quinn
green
1 sentence2021Under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, "[a] refinancing lender whose security turns out to be defective is subrogated by equitable assignment 'to the position of the lender whose lien is discharged by the proceeds of the later loan, there being no prejudice to or justified reliance by a party in adverse interest.'" Ocwen, 450 N.J. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Caput Mortuum v. S & S. CROWN SERV. LTD.
green
1 sentence2017Ibid. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kaplan v. Walker
green
2 sentences2016Co., 190 N.J.Super. 340, 342 , 463 A.2d 398 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Kaplan v. Walker, 164 N.J.Super. 130, 138 , 395 A.2d 897 (App. Div. 1978)). 2016Co., 190 N.J.Super. 340, 342 , 463 A.2d 398 (App. Div. 1983) (quoting Kaplan v. Walker, 164 N.J.Super. 130, 138 , 395 A.2d 897 (App. Div. 1978)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Investors Savings v. Keybank Nat.
green
2 sentences2013As we also recognized last year in Investors Savings, supra, 424 N.J.Super. at 446 n. 3, 38 A.3d 638 , “[a] number of other jurisdictions have adopted [the Third Restatement’s ] view of the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” In one of those out-of-state cases we cited, 11 Prestance, supra, 160 P.3d at 20-24, the Supreme Court of Washington comprehensively discussed the underpinnings of the “actual knowledge” exception, and offered multiple reasons why that exception should be abandoned. 2013As we also recognized last year in Investors Savings, supra, 424 N.J.Super. at 446 n. 3, 38 A.3d 638 , “[a] number of other jurisdictions have adopted [the Third Restatement’s ] view of the doctrine of equitable subrogation.” In one of those out-of-state cases we cited, 11 Prestance, supra, 160 P.3d at 20-24, the Supreme Court of Washington comprehensively discussed the underpinnings of the “actual knowledge” exception, and offered multiple reasons why that exception should be abandoned. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Trus Joist Corp. v. Treetop Associates, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012Co., 190 N.J.Super. 168, 179 , 462 A. 2d 603 (App.Div.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 97 N.J. 22 , 477 A. 2d 817 (1984). 2012Co., 190 N.J.Super. 168, 179 , 462 A. 2d 603 (App.Div.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 97 N.J. 22 , 477 A. 2d 817 (1984). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Trus Joist Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2012Co., 190 N.J.Super. 168, 179 , 462 A. 2d 603 (App.Div.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 97 N.J. 22 , 477 A. 2d 817 (1984). 2012Co., 190 N.J.Super. 168, 179 , 462 A. 2d 603 (App.Div.1983), rev'd on other grounds, 97 N.J. 22 , 477 A. 2d 817 (1984). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
First Fidelity Bank, National Ass'n v. Travelers Mortgage Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008It is clear that subrogation will not be denied in New Jersey because of the recordation of junior encumbrances which would otherwise move up to a higher priority. [ Id. at 565 , 693 A. 2d 525 (citing 29 New Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 147 at 674-76 (Roger A. Cunningham & Saul Tischler) (1975)).] Thus, the fact that plaintiff was on constructive notice of the AGFS mortgage does not bar the court from invoking the doctrine of equitable subrogation. 2008It is clear that subrogation will not be denied in New Jersey because of the recordation of junior encumbrances which would otherwise move up to a higher priority. [ Id. at 565 , 693 A. 2d 525 (citing 29 New Jersey Practice, Law of Mortgages § 147 at 674-76 (Roger A. Cunningham & Saul Tischler) (1975)).] Thus, the fact that plaintiff was on constructive notice of the AGFS mortgage does not bar the court from invoking the doctrine of equitable subrogation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
First Union National Bank v. Nelkin
green
2 sentences2008The doctrine, with its "equity underpinnings," is used "to compel the ultimate discharge of an obligation by the one who in good conscience ought to pay it." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J.Super. 557, 565 , 808 A. 2d 856 (App.Div.2002) (quoting Culver v. Ins. 2008The doctrine, with its "equity underpinnings," is used "to compel the ultimate discharge of an obligation by the one who in good conscience ought to pay it." First Union Nat'l Bank v. Nelkin, 354 N.J.Super. 557, 565 , 808 A. 2d 856 (App.Div.2002) (quoting Culver v. Ins. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.