PATCH OF LAND LENDING, LLC v. RR CHADWICK, LLC et al

Filing 55

OPINION & ORDER that Plaintiff's 52 Motion for a Writ of Assistance is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 3/10/2020. (ams, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

POL X, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
RR CHADWICK, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 16-9293 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER

CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion filed by Plaintiff POL X, LLC
(“Plaintiff’) for entry of a writ of assistance [ECF 52]. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an Order from
this Court directing the Clerk of the Court to issue a writ of assistance so that Plaintiff can take
possession of a parcel of real property acquired by Plaintiff in a foreclosure sale. For the reasons
that follow, this motion will be denied.
By way of background, Plaintiff held a mortgage on the real property located at 397
Chadwick Avenue, Newark, New Jersey 07112 (the “Property”). Plaintiff initiated this
foreclosure action to collect amounts due under its loan to Defendants and to pursue its right of
foreclosure. On January 17, 2018, this Court entered default judgment in favor of Plaintiff,
ordering, in relevant part, that the Property be sold. A foreclosure sale occurred on May 8, 2019.
Plaintiff purchased the Property. On November 4, 2019, the Court entered an order confirming
the foreclosure sale, and thereafter, Plaintiff recorded its deed to the Property with the Essex
County Register of Deeds and Mortgages.
1

Plaintiff now brings this motion for the Court’s assistance in obtaining possession of the
Property. Plaintiff states that “upon information and belief, the property is currently occupied by
commercial tenants of the Defendant . . .,” (Pl. Br. at 5, ECF 54), which it argues deprives
Plaintiff of possession. Plaintiff maintains that it is entitled to possession of the Property as “the
owner of the subject property pursuant to the foreclosure sale and recorded deed” (id.) and thus
seeks a writ from the Court enforcing its prior orders and directing the U.S. Marshal’s Service to
serve the writ on the current occupants. Plaintiff essentially seeks an order of eviction.
The motion, however, fails to provide any authority for the Court to grant such relief.
Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to supply the legal and factual bases for its
application for a writ of assistance, but its supplemental brief does not cite any cases which are
directly on point. Nor does it provide the appropriate grounds for the writ. A writ of assistance is
an exercise of a court’s equitable power to enforce its own orders or judgments “and thereby
avoid relitigation of questions once settled between the same parties.” Wesch v. Folsom, 6 F.3d
1465, 1470 (11th Cir. 1993); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 70(a) (authorizing the Court, when
presented with a disobedient party, to order another person to carry out a judgment that “requires
a party to convey land, to deliver a deed or other document, or to perform any other specific
act.). Here, the Court entered judgment authorizing a foreclosure sale and, later, entered an order
confirming that sale. While Plaintiff argues that this Court’s orders entitle it to possession of the
Property, it does not point to an order in which the Court determined Plaintiff’s rights of
possession as against the Property’s current occupants. The Court’s orders in this case are limited
to the remedy of foreclosure. Plaintiff once held a mortgage on the Property and prevailed in this
action in enforcing its right of foreclosure. That it now holds the deed to the Property gives it no
greater right to the Court’s assistance in enforcing its ownership rights than if the deed had been

2

acquired by some third party in the foreclosure sale. Additionally, the Court notes that there is no
indication that the potentially affected individuals or entities, that is, the current occupants of the
Property, are or were at any time parties to this action. Nor is there any indication that the current
occupants have been given proper notice, or any notice at all, of the instant application.
In short, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a writ would serve to enforce the Court’s own
orders or judgments and therefore has not demonstrated that there is a basis for issuing the writ
of assistance. Accordingly,
IT IS on this 10th day of March, 2020,
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of assistance [ECF 52] be and hereby is
DENIED.

s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge

3