Vitale v. Hotel California, Inc.
1982 N.J. Super. LEXIS 769, 446 A.2d 880, 184 N.J. Super. 512 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A sheriff who fails to perform the duty of executing a writ of execution according to a judgment creditor's reasonable and lawful instructions may be subject to amercement, making the sheriff personally liable for the judgment debt.
Facts:
- David J. Vitale obtained a final judgment against Hotel California, Inc. for $6,317.
- Hotel California, Inc. operated a punk rock bar named 'The Fast Lane' that was primarily open for business late at night, from approximately 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.
- Vitale directed the Sheriff of Monmouth County, William Lanzaro, to levy upon cash and personal property at 'The Fast Lane' during its late-night hours.
- On July 31, a deputy sheriff attempted a levy but was denied access by the bar's 'bouncers' and left, fearing violence might ensue.
- After Vitale obtained a court order compelling access, the deputy returned on August 15 and successfully seized $714 in cash.
- The deputy reported to Vitale's attorney that he believed more money may have been hidden before he could seize it.
- Vitale instructed the sheriff's office to make further, successive levies on subsequent nights to satisfy the remainder of the judgment.
- Sheriff Lanzaro, after consulting with county counsel, refused to conduct any more levies, contending that the request was unreasonable due to the late hours and nature of the establishment.
Procedural Posture:
- David J. Vitale obtained a default judgment against Hotel California, Inc. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division.
- Vitale procured a writ of execution from the court clerk and delivered it to the Sheriff of Monmouth County.
- Following the sheriff's refusal to conduct further levies, Vitale filed a motion in the Superior Court of New Jersey to amerce Sheriff William Lanzaro for the amount of the unpaid judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a sheriff's refusal to make successive levies on a judgment debtor's cash-based business, based on the inconvenient late-night hours and a generalized fear of violence, constitute a failure to perform a legal duty that subjects the sheriff to amercement for the unpaid judgment amount?
Opinions:
Majority - Staller, J.S.C.
Yes. A sheriff's refusal to make successive levies under these circumstances constitutes a failure to perform a legal duty, subjecting the sheriff to amercement. The court reasoned that successive levies under a single writ of execution are permissible and legally recognized. A judgment creditor has exclusive control over the writ, and the sheriff must follow the creditor's 'positive, reasonable, lawful directions.' Vitale's instructions were reasonable because the bar's late operating hours were precisely when cash assets would be present. The sheriff's generalized fear of violence was an insufficient justification for non-performance, as law enforcement officers are expected to risk bodily harm in the performance of their duties and have the authority to arrest anyone obstructing the execution. By failing to perform his duty, the sheriff deprived Vitale of the benefit of the writ, causing a loss equal to the remaining judgment amount.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a sheriff's duty to execute a civil judgment is not discretionary and cannot be excused by inconvenience or generalized safety concerns. It clarifies that judgment creditors retain significant control over the execution process and that a sheriff's refusal to follow reasonable instructions can result in personal liability. The case serves as a key precedent for holding public officers accountable for the diligent performance of their civil enforcement duties, ensuring that the power of the court, as executed by the sheriff, is not thwarted by a party's resistance or an officer's reluctance.
Unlock the full brief for Vitale v. Hotel California, Inc.