Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MIHRANIAN, INC., A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY,PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. SAMUEL PADULA AND BOND AND MORTGAGE COMPANY OF NEWJERSEY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND VILLA MADRID, INC., ACORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANTS-THIRD PARTYPLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS,

PER CURIAM.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, 134 N.J. Super. 557 (1975). The plaintiff, Mihranian, Inc., (Mihranian) had an equitable interest in Padula's equitable ownership when he (Padula) contracted with Bond and Mortgage Company of New Jersey (Bond and Mortgage) to purchase the land. When Mihranian rescinded its agreement with Padula, then Mihranian's vendee's lien attached to Padula's interest in the land. That lien and the filing of the complaint to enforce it justified the filing of the lis pendens and Villa Madrid, Inc. charged with notice by reason of the lis pendens took title subject to Mihranian's equitable lien. Although Bond and Mortgage at the time it closed title knew that Mihranian had rescinded its agreement with Padula, Bond and Mortgage had a right to convey its interest in the property. We express no opinion as to the rights of the respondents inter sese. For affirmance — Chief Justice HUGHES, Justices MOUNTAIN, SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD and SCHREIBER and Judge KOLOVSKY — 7.

For reversal — None.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MIHRANIAN, INC. v. PADULA
(Jun 9, 1976)