NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4581-17T1
FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DWAYNE R. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Submitted January 29, 2019 – Decided February 20, 2019
Before Judges Rothstadt and Gilson.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Union County, Docket No. F-
009024-12.
Dwayne R. Smith, appellant pro se.
Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, LLC, attorneys for
respondent (Stuart H. West, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this foreclosure action, defendant Dwayne R. Smith presents his third
appeal from orders entered by the Chancery Division after the 2013 entry of the
final judgment in favor of plaintiff, Freedom Mortgage Corporation, and the sale
of the real property at a sheriff's sale. Defendant was evicted from the property
in 2014. Since then, he filed two earlier appeals challenging various post-
judgment orders entered by the Chancery Division. We rejected his arguments
and affirmed. See Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, No. A-2369-13 (App. Div.
Dec. 8, 2015) and Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Smith, No. A-3741-15 (App. Div.
July 21, 2017).
In the present matter, defendant appeals from the Chancery Division's
April 27, 2018 order denying his fourth motion to vacate the final judgment.
The order was entered by Judge Joseph P. Perfilio, who placed his reasons for
denying the motion on the record on the same date.
On appeal, defendant argues that the judge's denial of his motion was an
abuse of discretion because, contrary to the judge's decision, defendant
presented sufficient evidence that plaintiff reinstated the subject loan in 2018
and that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
required plaintiff to modify its original terms.
A-4581-17T1
2
We have considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal principles and conclude that they are without sufficient merit to
warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We discern no
abuse of discretion and affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge
Perfilio in his thorough decision.
Affirmed.
A-4581-17T1
3