XXXX
Attorneys for Plaintiff
______________________________ SUPERIOR COURT OF XXXX
CHANCERY DIVISON: XXX COUNTY
XXXX, LLC : GENERAL EQUITY PART
DOCKET NO.:
:
XXX
:
Defendants.
:
_____________________________
XXXX
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to N.J. Const., Art. VI 3, 2. Venue is proper in
this Court because the subject property is located in the County of XXXX and the
causes of action described herein took place within the County of Essex.
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS OF ALL COUNTS
1. This case arises from defendants’ negligence in providing accurate tax
information as to outstanding tax liens. Further, that there is ongoing mismanagement
and blatant conflict of interest creating duplicative liens and never cancelling liens paid
from the record with the County Register’s Office. There is apparent “interest” from City
officials in the property itself who are bullying and abusing their power causing the
Plaintiff Taxpayer great and irreparable harm to date. There is at best negligence and at
worse collusion, conflict of interest, official misconduct, breach of contract, and breach
of fiduciary duty. All reasonable efforts have been exhausted and the mismanagement is
systematic and endemic with Plaintiff seeking relief from the ongoing financial
nightmare. Since taking title to the property known as 70 Hillyer Street, Plaintiff owner
has been targeted and has been a victim of negligence harassment by inspectors and
given the Royal Run Around by City Officials who fail to cure the ongoing negligence
and misappropriation.
After a negligent payoff was provided and paid, and despite being well
maintained since purchase, City officials through selective enforcement have been
harassing Plaintiff in retaliation for complaining about the misconduct. Rather than
curing the tax liens as obligated and promised they have ignored requests for service
and denied access to the tax records in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act and Unfair
Business Practices of the State of XXX. Plaintiff purchased property from
longtime residents and sellers in XXX and has suffered financially due to
the defendant’s miscalculation and wanton cover up of their error(s). The Plaintiff has
been summonsed dozens of times for frivolous non-existent violations at the hands
Inspectors such as Paul Arthur and Carl Croom who ignore actual violations in a City full
of garbage and poorly run sanitation as well as unsafe conditions that remain ignored.
They simply “don’t like the ownership”. The reason why is that Plaintiff was bamboozled
and charged hundreds of thousands of dollars retroactively and systematically ignored
since the negligent payoff was given. There was even a promise made by the Tax
Assessor Paula XXX to cancel liens that induced plaintiff to make payments of over
$224,000 that have not been processed and the liens are actually rerecorded. The liens
that were never even cancelled after payment on same (undisputed and far exceeded
the property value at the time) are still open of record. Plaintiff suffers as 18% interest
continues to accrue. To add insult to injury the City is further harming Plaintiff as of June
XXXX is now continuously returning tax payments made by plaintiff accruing
unnecessary interest which is further causing damages to Plaintiff. Meanwhile the
money paid anyway to avoid interest accruing apparently goes back to parties intimately
affiliated with the City itself. The property is commonly known as 70 Hillyer St., Orange,
New Jersey 07050 and a deed was recorded for fair value in XXXX which was about
$100,000 at the time of purchase. Plaintiff contacted tax collector before the date of the
deed being executed XXXX. The Tax Assessor provided a negligent
payoff of $42,993.04 which was factored into the consideration along with the
dilapidated condition and given as a credit to Plaintiff and paid in full. Since that date
there has been a tragic and unjust chain of events of undisclosed liens claiming to be
legitimate costing the Plaintiff $500,000.00. The damages have exceeded $1.2 million
dollars and under the Consumer Fraud Act treble damages apply for $3.6 million dollars
in damages. Ongoing interest rates of 18% still apply to much of the debt and is
continuing to this date. This ongoing chain of events must end and we merely seek
relief to be made whole from the negligence of the City and its agents.
2. As outlined in paragraph 1 Plaintiff is a good faith purchaser who contacted
the City of Orange Township Tax Collector for a payoff of any and all Municipal Tax
Liens. This was done because an agreement was reached, a Contract was executed
and a Deed being recorded with the Essex County Register’s Office and an amount of
$42,993.04 was provided and paid in full. The value at the time was roughly $100,000
due to condition issues and neglect and XXXX Tax Collector suggested to pay
it right away because there was a tax sale the following month. Plaintiff paid fair value
and purchased the residence and began making repairs and quarterly tax payments
which were accepted. Since the date of purchase plaintiff completed extensive repairs
as the property was neglected for decades and made consecutive on time quarterly
property tax payments which were accepted by defendant City.
3. The negligence was discovered XXXX when the City of Orange
refused tax payments that were sent back and the phone calls were being ignored to
follow up. This was after a year after the purchase and accepting the quarterly taxes for
the property. A Notice of Claim was served on/or about XXXX. The scope of
the acts and damages are still expanding and not fully understood because the City
refuses to correct their records. Prior to purchasing 70 Hillyer Street, Orange, NJ,
plaintiff contacted Defendant City of Orange Township’s Tax Collector, Defendant, Paula
Ferreira to obtain total payoff of delinquent taxes owed on the property and was given a
figure of $42,993.04 as the total payment due and to pay that amount in full so interest
stops accruing. This disclosed and understood. Plaintiff paid that amount by bank check
and a receipt was given. Plaintiff consistently made the quarterly tax payments. The
City then retroactively claimed it does not accept partial payments and refused to
provide proof of liens and locked their doors through Covid.
Defendant, XXXX is the Tax Collector for the Defendant City of Orange
Township who provided plaintiff with delinquent tax information on the property known
and designated as XXXX, NJ. Based on that representation,
plaintiff paid the delinquent taxes in full. Plaintiff paid the quarterly property taxes.
One year later, the property tax payments were being returned without explanation and
the Collector. Plaintiff made numerous telephone calls and left numerous detailed
voice messages to defendant XXXX, but she never returned his phone calls
after this became an issue. After making constant phone calls and leaving voicemails,
finally Defendant, XXX contacted plaintiff and informed him that there were
three (3) tax liens on the property in the amount of $224,000 which was paid several
times after Plaintiff’s persistence. This amount exceeded the property’s value due to a
restoration and market factors. Defendant City of Orange then enticed plaintiff to
immediately pay off 2 liens which would stop the 18% interest from accruing and
promised that the third lien would be cancelled by the Defendant, City of Orange
Township. The tax collector XXXX then contacted the Township attorney who
agreed to cancel the “City lien” – then went back on their word.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CLAIMS SUPPORTING ALL COUNTS
One (1) year had passed since the recording of the deed and the Defendant, City
of Orange Township began returning plaintiff’s quarterly tax payments without
explanation as explained in the introduction. The latest overt act of negligence and
misconduct was on or about XXX when the last tax payment was returned. As
mentioned the collector was informed by Avram White esq Law Department Defendant
City of Orange to refuse communication with Plaintiff and refuse to acknowledge the
legal justification he requested and which was provided. Mr. White was sent proofs of
the errors and refused to correct them but has nothing. After leaving dozens of
voicemails to Defendant’s tax collector, Paula Ferreira, plaintiff was then informed that
there were several additional tax liens on the property that were not disclosed, but said
she spoke to the Defendant City of Orange Township’s Attorney Avram White esq.
about this situation and it was agreed if plaintiff paid two (2) of the undisclosed tax liens,
the City’s third tax lien would be cancelled. Plaintiff relied on that representation and in
good faith, paid two (2) tax liens totaling $175,000.00 to the City of Orange via Cashier
Bank Checks and also paid the Defendant City of Orange Township the filing fees to
cancel the lien documents. None of the paid off tax liens have been cancelled of
record. That is a breach of fiduciary duty and it is unclear where the money went.
Plaintiff called, wrote, emailed, appeared in person, and approached local
officials for clarification on these issues due to the fact that defendant City of Orange
Township’s attorney Avram White, Esq. indicated the lien that although was promised to
be cancelled he would not not do so. He gave no written response – ever. The whole
affair has been a complete failure on every level and it appears intentional because the
letters emails and phone calls asking for correction on the errors have most certainly
been received. He claimed there needed to be legal justification which was provided to
him. No response whatsoever. No courtesy and nothing in writing – ever. There was
supposed to be a resolution discharging the “City Lien” but that never happened. Out of
the four liens in question only one was disclosed and paid prior to closing. The lien paid
has a similar and almost identical tax sale certificate number is nearly exact as the
other. We firmly believe they are duplicative (certificates 1. $42,993.04 (lien paid to
avoid sheriffs sale prior to closing) No certificate number 2. $147,528.49 certificate 08-
000-73 (paid with cashier’s check but not cancelled) , 3. $32,805.19 certificate 11513
(paid with bank check and not cancelled) and 4. $126,453.71 (as of XXXX)
certificate 11-00513 (the City Municipal Lien promised to be cancelled that is the
identical number as the one paid)). The lienholder ID on 1153A is 00000007 which is
Imprestate LLC address 523 Park Ave 3 rd Floor Orange NJ 07050 c/o Aaron Mizra – this
is the Mayor’s office and Aaron Mizrahi esq. is the deputy City Attorney.. Meanwhile
while 11-513 has no lienholder ID at all. 1153A was paid in full and yet it was re-
recorded. The address of the lien and 1153A is the same as the Mayor’s office. There is
sufficient evidence to believe the leans are duplicative and this is a major
miscalculation. It is unclear where the money is going. After Paula Ferreira promised
December 23 rd at 10”01AM 2020 sent an email from PFerreira@organgenj.gov that she
“spoke with the City Attorney and the lien (certificate# 11-00513) will be cancelled”. This
is factual and a record of same was provided. This was the lien being paid for twice but
this is impossible to diagnose as we are being ignored. This has been a major job and
source of stress for the Plaintiff and their counsel to figure out. This discharge promised
by tax collector induced payments on the two liens paid then but refused to
acknowledge the errors and promises to cure and instead doubled down on the
misconduct. Thankfully the promise to cancel was in writing or it would be denied and
covered up. The City has been very careful to avoid any written response at all. Plaintiff
does not believe XXXX was involved but was merely silenced by officials. In fact
she reported “this is now a legal issue I cannot speak to you anymore” after attempting
to cure the City’s wrongdoing. Although not dispositive it is important to note the vacant
lot next door is owned by the Estate of Louis Mitchel whose beneficiary is a retired fully
pensioned City employee (City Clerk) Dwight Mitchel contiguous to 70 Hillyer St that the
City paid for a demolition of another dilapidated home on the site address 47 Hillyer
Street. This despite the beneficiary having a six-figure pension from the City itself and
not paying taxes for over a decade according to tax records. It has been suggested
many times openly that certain “City Officials are interested”. This is a conflict of interest
and explains the motive and possible conspiracy. Plaintiff has secured and maintained
this lot with the beneficiaries consent after illegal parking, broken bottles, drug vials,
cigarette butts, hypodermic needles, garbage, and an abandoned maroon van with a
human remains were found inside. Plaintiff has gone to great expense to clean the
neighborhood and supports “Cleanup Orange” a grass roots volunteer group that clean
up garbage and some City Officials said it made them “look bad”.
Meanwhile, the defendant City’s Official and Code Enforcement inspectors
openly harass and conspire in fabricating alleged violations by plaintiff and its agent
through frivolous tickets phone calls and violations in retaliation for an ongoing
perceived feud. One occasion XXXX served Plaintiff with a demand for $8,000 for
four nonsense violations that were dismissed on appeal. He called for $2,000 per week
10.1.21 in penalties only to lose on appeal to the County Construction Board Nicole
Nunez esq appearing for Plaintiff. He never answered his phone to explain or conduct
any factual or legal justification for same. Just another Tyrant with unchecked power.
Inspector Croom has popped up inspected without notice and alleged a smoke alarm
violation despite the City Fire Chief passing the site which passed. He has represented
himself as a ”tenant’s advocate” and appeared unnuanced person and left bullying
messages 5.17.22 and suggested the rent increase was too much for the tenant. His
ongoing bullying is harassment and misplaced meanwhile he refused to acknowledge
the City Fire Department Certification. The numbers do not add up on these liens over
the life of the unpaid taxes since 2007 and the City Officials all work in the same
building. There is ongoing tyranny and misconduct by all involved who have alarmed
frustrated and obfuscated justice causing Plaintiff great harm.
Defendant, Edison Tax Services, LLC, 1350 Liberty Ave., Hillside, NJ purchased
Tax Sale Certificate #08-073 at a premium subject to redemption on repayment of the
amount of sale with a rate of zero interest from Defendant, City of Orange Township
in/or about May 2, 2008. This defendant has not filed the Discharge of Mortgage
despite being paid by the plaintiff
Defendant, Jonathan Boxman, a resident of Freehold, New Jersey, was the
owner of a title company, XXXXX Road, Staten
Island, NY. who was sentenced by District Judge XXXX, Eastern District of
New York in a multi-million dollar federal fraud case that involved real estate closings
and escrow accounts.
Defendant, XXX of New XXX, Inc. recorded Assignments of Mortgage on
XXXX for Tax Sale Certificate No. XXXX
on XXXX. The foreclosure action, Docket No.: F-008319-11 remains open of
record in the Essex County Register’s Office. A Stipulation of Dismissal is required to
be filed to clear the title to XXXX Street, Orange, NJ. This lien was paid in full by
plaintiff and is still open as of XXXX.
Defendant U.S. Bank/Custodian for TLCF 2012A, LLC , 50 South 16 th St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2513 assigned Tax Sale Certificate No. 08-00073 to Defendant
XXXX.
Congress Ave., Ste 101, West Palm Beach, Fla. on XXXX and again on
XXX, despite the fact that Plaintiff had paid off Tax Sale Certificate XXXX
No cancellation/discharge has been recorded to clear title to XXX
This lien was paid in full by plaintiff and is still open as of XXXX.
Defendant, XXXX,
through its attorneys, XXXX recorded
an Assignment of Mortgage on XXX.
Plaintiff paid off said certificate. No cancellation/discharge has been recorded to clear
title to XXX, NJ. Cancellation being mandatory there is a grave threat
to the integrity when liens are not cancelled and an appearance of impropriety is
created. In essence it appears that the party charged with calculating the liens is also
the owner of the debt. This is contrary to the conflict rules and creates collusion
between the City and the tax department. Again – negligence and intentional
misconduct are both present in this matter.
Defendants conduct as alleged herein was willful and wanton and motivated by
malice with intent to cause harm to the Plaintiff.
Alternatively, or additionally, Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein was grossly
negligent, and reckless.
SUMMARY OF COUNTS MADE IN INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND FIRST
COUNT NEGLIGENCE AND GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. On November 12, 2021, the defendant City of Orange Township officially made their
position known that Plaintiff’s property taxes would not be accepted and that their Tax Sale
Certificate No. 11-00513 would not be cancelled, as promised. Accordingly, an in-person
service of a Notice of Claim was attempted on January 5, 2022 but unsuccessful when an
Administrator refused service. Service was then effected via UPS delivery. Orange owed a duty
to Taxpayers to reasonably account and calculate taxes and liens. They failed to meet this duty
and this and caused the Plaintiff damages. The damaged mount because the costs continue to
accrue.
2. To sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish four elements: "`(1)
a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) proximate cause, and (4) actual damages.’" Polzo v.
Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 584, 960 A.2d 375 (2008) (alterations omitted) (quoting Weinberg v.
Dinger, 106 N.J. 469, 484, 524 A.2d 366 (1987)). A "plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
those elements `by some competent proof.’" Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395,
406, 98 A.3d 1173 (2014) (citing Buckelew v. Grossbard, 87 N.J. 512, 525, 435 A.2d 1150
(1981); Overby v. Union Laundry Co., 28 N.J.Super. 100, 104, 100 A.2d 205
(App.Div.1953), aff’d o.b., 14 N.J. 526, 103 A.2d 404 (1954)). Proximate cause consists of "`any
cause which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause,
produces the result complained of and without which the result would not have
occurred.’" Conklin v. Hannoch Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 418, 678 A.2d 1060
(1996) (quoting Fernandez v. Baruch, 96 N.J.Super. 125, 140, 232 A.2d 661 (App.
Div.1967), rev’d on other grounds, 52 N.J. 127, 244 A.2d 109 (1968)); Dawson v. Bunker Hill
Plaza Assocs., 289 N.J.Super. 309, 322, 673 A.2d 847 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 146 N.J. 569,
683 A.2d 1164 (1996).
3. On XXXX, Plaintiff purchased 70 Hillyer Street, Orange, Essex County, New
XXXX. Prior to the purchase, plaintiff contacted Defendant, Paula
XXX of Orange and requested all tax payoff information. The harm was
discovered later as noted prompting a Notice of Claim to be served as a last resort.
4. On a date prior to September 13, 2019, Defendant, Paula Ferreira’s was careless and
negligent in providing an accurate figure of all tax payoff information to Plaintiff. Defendant
had a duty as Tax Collection to provide accurate tax information and failed to act with reasonable
care.
Defendant ,XXXX failed to disclose a material fact regarding an accurate figure of
outstanding taxes and then waited one (1) year to disclose to Plaintiff that there were 3 Tax Sale
Certificates after plaintiff paid the figure given by for delinquent taxes.
5. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant,XXX Plaintiff has sustained damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant on this Count for all
damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs of suit. The liens cancelled and the
Title made Quiet as Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and is the rightful owner.
SECOND COUNT BREACH OF CONTRACT, OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT,
CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY
6. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation in the introduction and the First Count as if
set forth at length herein. Plaintiff is a domestic LLC property owner and taxpayer in the City of
Orange. The City Tax Collector and various officials mentioned have miscalculated, mishandled
and operated with a direct conflict of interest while Plaintiff suffered severe damages. Because
the conduct is made by those with a special duty it is in their official capacity to conduct
safekeeping of all records and open access and public service which were not provided. In fact,
the Plaintiff was misled and the contract as owner of land is breached and plaintiff seeks treble
damages from defendants each jointly and severally.
7. Our law imposes on a plaintiff the burden to prove four elements: first, that "[t]he
parties entered into a contract containing certain terms"; second, that "plaintiff[s] did what the
contract required [them] to do"; third, that "defendant[s] did not do what the contract required
[them] to do[,]" defined as a "breach of the contract"; and fourth, that "defendant[s’] breach, or
failure to do what the contract required, caused a loss to the plaintiff[s]." Model Jury Charge
(Civil), § 4.10A "The Contract Claim-Generally" (May 1998); see also Coyle v.
Englander’s, 199 N.J.Super. 212, 223, 488 A.2d 1083 (App.Div.1985) (identifying essential
elements for breach of contract claim as "a valid contract, defective performance by the
defendant, and resulting damages").
7. Defendants, City of Orange Township, Edison Tax Services, LLC, XXXX,
Titledge of New Jersey Inc., US Bank Custodian for LLF1-NJ, US Bank Custodian for TLCF
2012A LLC, Imprestate LLC, Taxserv Capital Services NJ LLC were careless and negligent in
the duplication, recordation and discharging of Tax Sale Certificates, Discharges and/or
cancellations of Mortgages on 70 Hillyer Street, Orange, Essex County, New Jersey.
8. As a direct result of the aforesaid negligence of all Defendants and breach of official
duty, Plaintiff has sustained damages. The scope of duties of defendants are to monitor and
safekeep taxpayer monies. To avoid conflict and even an appearance of impropriety. They failed
all of these elements and Plaintiff has suffered severe injury as a result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on this Counts for all
damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs of suit. That the liens be cancelled and
the Plaintiff be reimbursed and made whole. A Jury trial is Requested.
THIRD COUNT: MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS, HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS
ABUSE OF PROCESS
8. Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation of the introduction First and Second Counts
as if set forth at length herein. Whereas defendants have not applied funds marked for taxes and
instead redirected them without recording same. This is a combination of negligence and
intentional misconduct and bad faith. Whereas Plaintiff has suffered grave irreparable harm at
the hands of defendants and the City of Orange conspired to bully annoy alarm and scare off
plaintiff from their own property rights. The moneys paid have not gone to their intended source-
the payoff of liens. The inspectors, officials, and legal department serving the Mayor have
refused communication and instead harass plaintiff and abuse their power.
9. An action for malicious abuse of process is distinguished from an action for malicious
use of process in that the action for abuse of process lies for the improper, unwarranted and
perverted use of process after it has been issued while that for the malicious use of it lies for
causing process to issue maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. Grainger v.
Hill, 4 Bing. N.C. 212. Thus it is said, in substance, that the distinction between malicious use
and malicious abuse of process is that the malicious use is the employment of process for its
ostensible purpose, although without reasonable or probable cause, whereas the malicious abuse
is the employment of a process in a manner not contemplated by law. [at 58]
10. A more recent exposition of the elements of an action for malicious abuse of process
is found in Gambocz v. Apel, 102 N.J. Super. 123, 130 (App. Div.), certif. den. 52 N.J. 485
(1968), wherein we emphasized that basic to such a cause of action is the requirement that the
litigator perform further acts after the issuance of process which represent the perversion or
abuse of the legitimate purposes of that process. See also, Mayflower Industries v. Thor
Corp., 15 N.J. Super. 139, 151 (Ch. Div. 1951), aff’d 9 N.J. 605 (1952).
11. Plaintiff hereby pleads Counts against all listed Defendants John Does and Jane
Roes, whose identities are unknown parties who/which are deemed to include individuals,
corporations, partnerships and any and all others who/which may have played a role whatsoever
in causing or contributing to the damages suffered by Plaintiff.
12. At such times as the identities of such fictious pleaded Defendants are ascertained,
Plaintiff shall seek leave to amend this Complaint so as to substitute the actual names of said
parties for the fictitious names set forth herein.
13. Plaintiff attributes each and every act of negligence and damages alleged against the
named Defendants hereto to those who are fictitiously pleaded as if they were more specifically
set forth in their entirety.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants on this Count for all
damages, together with attorney’s fees, interest and costs of suit. A Jury Trial is requested.
FORTH COUNT INEQUITY – BAD FAITH, CONSUMER FRAUD ACT, TREBLE
DAMAGED APPLY
14. Plaintiff repeats all Paragraphs of the Introduction First, Second and Third Counts of
the Complaint and are realleged and reasserted as if set forth at length herein. Plaintiff is a good
faith purchaser who has over $600,000 invested in this property. Plaintiff purchased from seller
and made good faith effort to pay all taxes and maintain and improve the property and grounds.
It is of the highest concern to protect property of plaintiffs engaged in good faith and the court
shall apply equity and fairness in the interests of justice. To protect consumers from fraud there
is the Consumer Fraud act and treble damages apply.
15. Plaintiff relied on defendant, City of Orange Township, Tax Collector’s instructions
to pay $42,993.04 in full of all delinquent taxes so interest stops accruing. Plaintiff paid that
amount and received a receipt, but does not know where the $42,993.04 was applied. After that
the intent was to cover up and profit from a complicated scheme to overtax and harass Plaintiff.
This was intentional and ongoing to today.
16. Defendant, City of Orange Township, Tax Collector refuses to accept real estate
property taxes despite repeated requests for explanation and repeated mailings to resolve.
17. After one (1) year passed, defendant, City of Orange Township’s, Tax Collector
contacted plaintiff to inform that there are 3 open Tax liens on the property, but told plaintiff that
after speaking with the City’s attorney, one (1) lien would be cancelled of record if plaintiff paid
two (2) open liens. Based on that representation, on June 1, 2021, plaintiff paid $147,528.49 to
pay off Tax Sale Certificate 08-00073 and $32,805.19 to pay off Tax Sale Certificate 11513A.
Plaintiff also provided the Defendant City of Orange Township $110.00 for payment of the
cancellation filing fees. Again – none were cancelled.
18. Due to the defendants’ unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts they are liable for
treble damages, attorney fees and costs The Plaintiff hereby requests the court to apply equitable
relief from the intentional and negligent acts of the defendants involved. .
19. Due to the defendants’ intentional reckless disregard as to whether or not they were
violating applicable consumer protection laws constitutes knowledge and intent.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against all defendants for all damages, including,
but not limited to reimbursement of the monies paid to defendant on Tax Sale Certificate #08-
00073 and Tax Sale Certificate #11513A, statutory damages, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s
fees and all damages the Court deems equitable and just. A jury trial is requested.
FIFTH COUNT (CONSPIRACY – ALL DEFENDANTS)
20. Plaintiff repeats all background and introductory facts alleged and Paragraphs 1
through 15 of Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint and are realleged and reasserted as if set forth at
length herein.
21. On the well-established elements of a civil conspiracy, that is, the "`combination of
two or more persons acting in concert to commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by
unlawful means, the principal element of which is an agreement between the parties to inflict a
wrong against or an injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damage.’" Id. at 177,
876 A.2d 253 (quoting Morgan v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 268 N.J.Super. 337,
364, 633 A.2d 985 (App.Div.1993), certif. denied, 135 N.J. 468, 640 A.2d 850 (1994)).
22. All named defendants and those revealed in ongoing discovery conspired to act
together to defraud plaintiff by creating and filing duplicative Tax Sale Certificates and
Assignments of Tax Sale Certificates despite making payment of all delinquent taxes in the
amount of $42,993.04 as the confirmed amount given by defendant, City of Orange Township’s
tax collector.
23. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants acted with a reckless disregard for the
rights of plaintiff.
24. All named and unnamed defendants co-conspirators are jointly and severally liable to
plaintiff as a result of the conspiracy that they formed. It is clear these seemingly independent
actors all have a common mob like mentality. To escalate and frustrate Plaintiff which is an
organized plan.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against all defendants for all damages, including,
cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees and all damages the Court deems equitable and just. We
hereby request damages and relief from the conduct of the defendants. Also, that the liens be
removed and cancelled so as to QUIET TITLE in favor of plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25. Plaintiff repeats all Introduction Background Paragraphs Counts 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 of the
Complaint and are realleged and reasserted as if set forth at length herein.
26. Plaintiff is the current owner of the property located at 70 Hillyer Street, Orange,
Essex County, New Jersey.
27. One or more of the named defendants filed or caused to be filed duplicative Tax Sale
Certificates and/or Assignments of the Tax Sales Certificates in favor of the lienholders.
28. One or more of the named defendants failed to file cancellation of the Tax Sale
Certificates and/or Assignments of the Tax Sales Certificates with the Essex County Clerk’s
Office, Newark, New Jersey to the detriment of the plaintiff.
29. Defendants’ negligence in failing to cancel the Tax Sale Certificates and/or
Assignments of Tax Sales Certificates represent liens on plaintiff’s property/land that is adverse
to plaintiff’s own interest, thereby creating a cloud on the title to his property that is both
unlawful and invalid.
30. The aforementioned cloud on plaintiff’s property prevents it from unencumbered
enjoyment of the property as sole and rightful owner.
31. Due to the aforementioned cloud on plaintiff’s property, defendant, City of Orange
Township refuses to accept payment for taxes and interest continues to accrue.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment cancelling all Tax Sale Certificates and/or
Assignments of all Tax Sale Certificates, an Order quieting the plaintiff’s title in its’ property, an
award of damages to compensate plaintiff for the wrongdoing by all defendants that created the
need for this Quite Title Action, statutory, compensatory and actual damages, punitive damages
and for all other damages, including, cost of suit, reasonable attorney’s fees and all damages the
Court deems equitable and just. A jury trial is requested.
___________________________________
DEMAND TO PRESERVE AND PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND DEPOSITIODEMAND
ON ALL PARTIES NAMES APPEARING IN COMPLAINT
Plaintiff hereby demands that all Defendants preserve all physical and electronic
documents, things, and information relating in any way to Plaintiff’s claims set forth herein.
Failure to preserve documents, things and information containing such information as
described above will result in separate claims for spoliation of evidence for appropriate adverse
inferences and for any other appropriate sanctions and it shall not be a defense to such claims,
inferences or sanctions that Defendants lost access to documents, things and information due to
clerical error or equipment failure.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
The undersigned is hereby designated as trial counsel in this matter.
RULE 4:5-1 CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certifies that:
1. I am an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey. In that capacity, I am
familiar with the facts of this case.
2. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, no other action is pending in any
court or arbitration proceeding nor has it disclosed any other persons who should be added as
parties to this action at this time. As of this date, there are no actions contemplated which relate
to this matter.
I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any
of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.
________________________________
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )