mortgage and note are valid only as to Mr. Sagi, Brae is effectively and permanently restrained from enforcing any defi ciency judgment against him. That is, by the terms of the permanent restraint, any funds collected by Brae from Mr. Sagi or paid on his behalf would have to be funneled to Mrs. Sagi, who in turn by the court’s order would not be obliged to use the monies to pay the mortgage debt or the real estate taxes while remaining in the residence. Furthermore, the imposition of the restraints against Brae’s collection of its mortgage obligation is contrary to laws of this State governing lien priority. The basic rule of lien priority in New Jersey is “first in time, first in right.” Fidelity Union Title & Mtg. Guar. Co. v. Magnifico, 106 N.J. Eq. 559, 562, 151 A. 499 (Ch.1930) (<HOLDING>); United Jersey Bank/South v. Camera, 271
holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law holding that determination of whether prior conviction was punishable by term of imprisonment exceeding one year is governed by law in effect on date of conviction recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law holding that admissibility of a confession is governed by determining from the totality of the circumstances whether or not it was made voluntarily holding that priority of liens whether by mortgage or judgment is governed by the date of acquisition