Vito’s Towing, Inc. v. Kemp (1995)
Citation: 279 N.J. Super. 414, 652 A.2d 1259 · Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (Michels, Stern and Keefe, JJ.A.D.) · Decided: February 8, 1995 · Opinion: Keefe, J.A.D. The text was retrieved from the Caselaw Access Project static case file (unofficial verbatim reporter scan).
Source note (2026-10-18):
- Links on this page to
https://static.case.law/nj-super/279/cases/0414-01.jsonare an (unofficial Caselaw Access Project copy, retrieved before 2026-10-18; host disallows automated access); no official or otherwise permitted full-text copy was located on 2026-10-18.
Facts
At the Clifton police’s direction, Vito’s Towing towed a 1981 Toyota (92,676 miles) that had been totaled in an accident. The owner did not reclaim it after notice. The Borough of Clifton considered the car abandoned “pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 39:10A-8” and gave notice of a public auction under N.J.S.A. 39:10A-1(d). On November 20, 1990 the car was offered with others. The owner then owed USD 1,490.45 in towing and storage. Vito’s was the only bidder, at USD 10, and later sold the car for junk for USD 50–60. In Vito’s suit for the deficiency, the trial court presumed the car’s reasonable value covered the debt because the sale was “not an arms length transaction,” and dismissed.
Holding
The court reversed and remanded. The abandoned-vehicle statute “seems to imply that plaintiff is entitled to a credit against outstanding charges only for the amount received at the public sale” (citing N.J.S.A. 39:10A-5 and -17). But “equitable principles may be applied to public sales conducted pursuant to N.J.S.A. 39:10A-1 to -20 in appropriate cases. Where as here the creditor is the only bidder at the public sale and the bid is a minimal one an inquiry into fair market value credit is appropriate.” On this record, the junk resale price was competent proof of value. The tower could document it, and the owner could try to prove a higher value.
Reasoning
- The owner could have reclaimed the car before sale by paying the charges (N.J.S.A. 39:10A-2).
- Applying the equitable fair-market-value credit recognised for mortgage-foreclosure deficiencies in Citibank, N.A. v. Errico, 251 N.J. Super. 236 (App. Div. 1991), “nothing … precludes a court from applying equitable principles to impose a fair market value credit to prevent a windfall.”
- The trial court erred by presuming value without evidence. The vehicle was nine years old and totaled.
Practical impact
- Buyers / operators: a tower or storer that buys in at a public-agency abandoned-vehicle auction for a nominal bid, then sues the owner for the shortfall, faces a fair-market-value inquiry. Keep documentation of the resale.
- Owners / debtors: a deficiency after an N.J.S.A. 39:10A public sale can be reduced by the vehicle’s fair market value where the creditor was the only, nominal bidder. The right to reclaim before sale is N.J.S.A. 39:10A-2.
Good-law status
Later treatment remains needs_verification. The complete earlier reporter JSON is preserved
and was independently read locally on 2026-10-17; fresh reporter-host requests returned 403.
Historical body verification is not a current good-law determination. Searches located
Classic Towing v. DeProspo, A-5879-08T2 (App. Div. Mar. 15, 2010), and
Froehlich v. Hillside Auto Center, A-3034-05T3 (App. Div. June 26, 2007), as later citing
opinions on an unofficial host. They are unpublished and are not a comprehensive treatment check.
Their direct requests returned 403, although web-view access exposed opinion text; no new
full-body artifact for them is claimed. N.J.S.A. 39:10A-1, -2, -5 and -17 remain in the official statutes
file (retrieved 2026-10-17). Second-pass check (2026-10-17): citation, court, panel, decision date
and quoted passages confirmed against the case.law file. The scan prints the statute as
“39-.10A-1 to -20”; the quote above normalises it to 39:10A-1.
Later-opinion retrieval URLs (2026-10-17): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2010/a5879-08-opn.html and https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2007/a3034-05-opn.html.
Applies in →
new-jersey · towing-storage-and-mechanics-lien-sales · motor-vehicles
Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarizes a court decision that may have been limited or distinguished by later authority. Nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. Read the full opinion and consult a licensed attorney before acting.