In 1991, Morris Gletzer obtained a money judgment against Amos Harris for about $470,000.
On October 23, 1991, that judgment was docketed and a lien was placed on Harris's Manhattan condominium.
Over the course of the next decade, Gletzer tried to foreclose on Harris's condo and collect the monies due, but was unsuccessful. So, on October 22, 2001, just one day before that judgment was to expire, Gletzer started a case to renew his lien. Interestingly, his request wasn't granted until February 2005 -- some 4 years later -- and, during that gap, Harris borrowed large amounts of money from two mortgage companies and both lenders relied on a public records which showed Gletzer's judgment had expired.
While the New York County Supreme Court allowed retroactive treatment of Gletzer's renewal, on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed.
The AD1 thought the extension went into effect on the date the request was granted by the lower court and found the judgment couldn't be retroactively enforced and didn't supersede the subsequent mortgages.
When that determination was challenged, our state's highest court also refused to give retroactive treatment to the renewed judgment because mortgage companies and other parties need to be able to rely on pubic records for lien related information.
Given that he failed to secure the renewal within the initial ten-year window, Gletzer lost his "priority" status and ended up at the back of the line.
How forward thinking was that?
To view a copy of the Court of Appeals's decision, please use this link: Gletzer v. Harris