A.B.R. Corp. v. City of Newark, 133 N.J.L. 34, 42 A.2d 296 (1945)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 133 N.J.L. 34, 42 A.2d 296 (1945)
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1945
- Topic tags: equitable_conversion | equitable_interest | vendee | title
- Facts: Litigation over whether a purchaser (vendee) under a contract for the sale of land held a sufficient interest in the property in the context of municipal tax assessment / title questions.
- Holding: The court applied the doctrine of equitable conversion, treating the purchaser under an enforceable contract for the sale of land as holding equitable title, with the vendor retaining legal title; the opinion notes that the vendee’s “equitable title must be vested and perfected by full performance of the contract.”
- Reasoning: Under equitable conversion, on entry into an enforceable land-sale contract equity regards the buyer as owner of the land and the seller as holder of the legal title in trust / as security for the price — the foundational New Jersey statement of the vendee’s equitable interest.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Establishes that a New Jersey installment-land- contract / contract-for-deed buyer holds a recognized equitable interest in the property from contract formation, perfected by full performance — the doctrinal basis for the buyer’s recordable, insurable interest, risk-of-loss allocation, and claim to the deed at payoff. See equitable-conversion.
- Good-law status: Good law for the equitable-conversion principle; an older opinion — confirm the precise pinpoint language against the full text before quoting in a brief.
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3582175/abr-corp-v-city-of-newark/ · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: new-jersey
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.