A recent decision by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, has upheld previous orders denying a property owner’s efforts to overturn a final judgment of foreclosure on residential real estate. The ruling clarifies the limitations for challenging such judgments after significant time has passed and addresses claims regarding service of process, due process, and alleged unconstitutional takings.
The appeal was filed by Harinder Singh on December 26, 2024, in the Appellate Division under Docket No. A-1274-24. Singh challenged two Chancery Division orders: an October 25, 2024 order denying his motion to vacate an August 31, 2022 final judgment of foreclosure, and a December 6, 2024 order denying his motion for reconsideration. The complaint was brought against Blitei LLC and several other parties connected to the property or its title.
According to court documents, Singh acquired title to residential property in Sayreville Borough on May 22, 2017 but did not reside there. Shortly after obtaining title, he failed to pay local property taxes as well as water and sewer charges. This led to the borough selling a tax sale certificate for $7,846.99 on October 24, 2019 to US Bank Custodian for Actlien Holdings (Actlien), which later transferred the lien to Blitei LLC while foreclosure proceedings were pending.
On October 1, 2021, Actlien served a pre-foreclosure notice via certified mail addressed to Singh’s residence; however, it was returned unclaimed. A complaint seeking foreclosure was filed on November 9, 2021. Service of summons and complaint was accepted at Singh’s home address by his wife Harish Singh on November 15, 2021. Although there was an initial clerical error in the affidavit of service—incorrectly indicating personal service upon Harinder Singh—the process server later corrected this record.
Singh did not file an answer or respond initially. On April 22, 2022 Blitei moved for entry of an order setting redemption terms; notice was sent both by certified and first-class mail with only the certified mail returned unclaimed. The court set July 12, 2022 as the last date for redemption; again notices were sent but went largely unanswered by Singh.
With no redemption made or opposition filed by Singh at that stage, final judgment was entered on August 31, 2022. Blitei served this judgment by first-class mail at Singh’s residence.
Subsequently in October 2022—over a month after final judgment—Singh submitted documents purporting to be motions opposing summary judgment and dismissal based on failure to state a claim. These filings were rejected due to procedural deficiencies including lack of filing fees and improper party names.
It was not until October 3, 2024—more than two years after entry of final judgment—that Singh formally moved to vacate the decision. He argued defective service due to errors in affidavits but did not deny actual receipt nor contest his wife’s acceptance of service or knowledge of proceedings. The court found these arguments insufficient both procedurally (untimely) and substantively (no evidence supporting excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances).
In November 2024 Singh sought reconsideration citing medical issues affecting his ability to respond earlier and claimed loss of rental income due to alleged actions by Blitei following eviction from the property. He also requested over half a million dollars as compensation for what he described as an unconstitutional taking under Tyler v. Hennepin County—a Supreme Court decision issued May 25, 2023—but provided no admissible evidence establishing either property value or excess equity taken beyond what was owed for redemption.
The Chancery Division denied reconsideration on December 6, describing Singh’s motion as “borderline frivolous” and lacking probative evidence or new information warranting relief: “Nor has the [defendant] brought forward any new or additional information…that the [court] could have considered…in the interest of justice.” The court further found no deficiency in service since it was undisputed that Harish Singh accepted documents as spouse.
On appeal before Judges DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O’Connor (decision issued April 15, 2026), the Appellate Division affirmed these findings: “Defendant proffered no credible explanation for the two-year delay.” The panel noted established law limits reopening judgments more than three months old except for jurisdictional defects or fraud—and even then only if pursued within reasonable timeframes per Rule 4:50-1(d) or (f). Prior attempts by defendant shortly after judgment were rejected due to procedural errors; no timely valid motion remained pending when relevant Supreme Court precedent (Tyler) emerged.
Singh’s additional arguments included claims about standing, validity of certificates and notices related to sale and redemption processes; allegations about inflated expenditures claimed by plaintiff; disputes over chain-of-title; assertions that statutory authority only permitted public welfare uses rather than private profit; among others—all deemed without merit by both trial-level and appellate courts.
Blitei LLC is represented by attorney Andre O. Kwon with Gary C. Zeitz LLC as counsel; Amber J. Monroe appeared on their brief. Harinder Singh represented himself during argument before the appellate panel under Docket No. F-005667-21.
Source: A127424_Blitei_LLC_v_Singh_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
