The obligor in any bond or note specified in section 2A:50-2 of this Title, with respect to any bond given after March 29, 1933, and with respect to any note given after the effective date of this amendatory act may file an answer in the action for deficiency, disputing the amount of the deficiency sued for. In that event both parties may introduce evidence as to the fair market value of the mortgaged premises at the time of the sale thereof in the foreclosure action, and the court, with or without a jury, shall determine the amount of such deficiency, by deducting from the debt secured the amount determined as the fair market value of the premises. If all parties to the action shall so agree, the court may accept as the fair market value of the mortgaged premises the value fixed by three appraisers, to be named by agreement of all the parties to the action, which agreement shall be evidenced by a stipulation to be filed in the action.
Amended by L.1979, c. 286, s. 2.
Notes of Decisions
Fayette Cnty. Nat'l Bank v. Lilly, 484 S.E.2d 232 (W. Va. 1997).
“If no party requests the determination of fair market value or if such a request is made and no competent evidence of fair market value is introduced, the sale price at the foreclosure sale shall be used to compute the deficiency.”
In re Hunt's Pier Assocs., 162 B.R. 442 (E.D. Pa. 1993).
· cites it 3× “N.J.S.A. 2A:50-3. In such cases the court determines the amount of the deficiency by crediting the fair market value of the property against the debt secured by the mortgage.”
MMU of New York, Inc. v. Grieser, 999 A.2d 1204 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010).
“Where property is sold to a holder of the subsequent obligation, by analogy to and in accord with the spirit of N.J.S.A 2A:50-3, the debtor in the foreclosure action should be entitled to show the fair market value of the property and obtain a credit against the amount due on…”
West Pleasant â€\ CPGT (2020).
· cites it 10× “And N.J.S.A. 2A:50-3 provides that a debtor “may file an answer in the action for deficiency, disputing the amount .”
Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Roggio (D.N.J. 2023).
· cites it 7× “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:50-3. 5 The Court notes that the amount owed by Defendant exceeds the fair market value of property regardless of whether the Court accepts either Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s fair market valuation.”
Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. v. Punia, 884 F. Supp. 148 (D.N.J. 1995).
“N.J.S.A. 2A:50-3. The purpose behind this law is to prevent a foreclosing lender from gaining a windfall by double recovery, once by taking possession of the collateral, and then by suing the defaulting borrower for money damages in an action on the underlying debt.”
In Re Karagiannis, 453 B.R. 548 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2011).
· cites it 2× “7 million and $4 million (depending on whether the units were renovated or not).”
Td Bank, Etc. v. Farrendale Investments, LLC (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024).
“92 , 108 (2020) (noting "the legislative purposes of the fair market value credit under N.J.S.A. 2A:50-3 have informed the Court's equity jurisdiction where the statute would not otherwise apply"); see also 79-83 Thirteenth Ave.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.