Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Foreclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances tax-foreclosure overhaul aimed at protecting surplus equity
Summary
The State and Local Government Committee released A3772, which revises New Jersey tax-sale and foreclosure procedures to align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Tyler decision and to create an opt‑in sheriff’s sale process intended to preserve homeowner surplus equity while preserving investor participation.
A draft overhaul of New Jersey’s tax-sale law moved out of the Assembly State and Local Government Committee after more than an hour of testimony from municipal officials, investors and legal-services advocates. A3772 would revise the state’s tax-foreclosure process to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County and to create a pathway for property owners to preserve surplus equity in foreclosure cases.
Proponents including Maureen Cosgrave of the Tax Collectors and Treasurers Association told the committee the bill strikes a balance between protecting homeowners and keeping third‑party investors participating in tax sales. "A 3772 is a balanced approach in revising the tax sale law in New Jersey," Cosgrave said, noting the bill allows delinquent taxpayers who believe they have surplus equity to request a sheriff’s sale "at any time prior to the entry of final judgment." She also said the measure authorizes internet auctions and provides for reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees to encourage investor participation.
Opponents, led by Jeremy Silverman of Legal Services of New Jersey, urged the committee to strengthen homeowner protections. Silverman said the draft still contains provisions that could leave some owners deprived of surplus equity and pressed the panel to require more robust notice and post‑judgment opportunities. "The legislation should require that the homeowner be given notice both before and after the tax lien sale," Silverman said, and recommended options such as giving owners a window after final judgment to list a property for private sale to maximize recovery of surplus funds.
Investor and municipal witnesses offered competing policy priorities. Investor representatives argued that removing incentives for participation would raise municipal costs and ultimately burden taxpayers; one proponent estimated tens of millions in annual payments to municipalities by investors and stressed that the bill’s changes were necessary to keep those market participants engaged. Municipal representatives and the League of Municipalities said the proposal would help local governments continue to collect tax revenues and address abandoned properties.
The committee released A3772 for further consideration. Several committee members expressed concerns about language that they said still needs fine‑tuning and urged sponsors to work with Legal Services, municipal groups and investor representatives to address notice requirements, the treatment of vacant or abandoned properties, and other constitutional issues before the bill proceeds to the floor.
