NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5541-16T3
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for
Asset Backed Securities Corporation
Home Equity Loan Trust, Series
OOMC 2006-HE5, Asset Backed
Pass-Through Certificates, Series
OOMC 2006-HE5,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SABELLE K. JELANI, RIDINGS
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
PLYMOUTH PARK TAX SERVICES,
LLC and VIRTUA MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL,
Defendants,
and
AHMED JELANI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted October 31, 2018 – Decided December 3, 2018
Before Judges Koblitz and Currier.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No. F-
009298-15.
Ahmed Jelani, appellant pro se.
Blank Rome, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Matthew
M. Maher, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Ahmed Jelani appeals the
February 12, 2016 order striking his answer. An uncontested order for final
judgment was entered in July 2017. After a review of defendant's contentions
in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we affirm.
In 2006, Sabelle Jelani, defendant's wife, executed a note to Option One
Mortgage Corporation for $627,950. The note was secured by a mortgage,
which was executed by defendant and Sabelle to Option One. Defendant and
Sabelle defaulted on their obligations under the note and mortgage on October
1, 2008. In 2009, Option One assigned the mortgage to plaintiff U.S. Bank
National Association. 1
1
American Home Servicing, Inc., Option One's successor-in-interest, assigned
the mortgage to plaintiff. Sand Corporation f/k/a Option One, as successor-in-
interest of Option One, executed a corrective assignment in 2011.
A-5541-16T3
2
A complaint for foreclosure was filed on March 16, 2015. Defendant filed
a contesting answer with affirmative defenses, including allegations challenging
plaintiff's standing and a claim he was not provided with the Notice of Intent to
Foreclose (NOI). A case management order set discovery deadlines for
document production, interrogatory responses, and completion of depositions.
Defendant requested plaintiff produce its representative who had prepared
the Certification of Diligent Inquiry attached to the complaint. Plaintiff
objected, advising the deposition was unwarranted as any information defendant
sought would be provided in the written discovery. Although defendant moved
to compel the requested deposition, he later withdrew his motion after receiving
plaintiff's written discovery. Defendant advised, in his letter to the court, the
parties had agreed "to discuss scheduling the deposition" of plaintiff's corporate
representative.
In December 2015, plaintiff moved to strike defendant's answer and for
summary judgment in foreclosure. The supporting certification included copies
of the original note and mortgage, assignment of the mortgage, and NOI.
Defendant did not oppose the motion.
During oral argument in February 2016, the court permitted defendant to
present his arguments in opposition to the motion. Defendant contended the
A-5541-16T3
3
motion should be dismissed as plaintiff had not produced the requested
representative for deposition, and had not provided the proper documentation to
establish it was the "lawful owner" of the mortgage. The Chancery judge found
defendant's assertions lacked credibility and noted she had not issued an order
entitling him to the requested deposition.
In a written statement of reasons and order issued February 12, 2016, the
judge granted plaintiff's motion to strike the answer. The judge found plaintiff
had established a prima facie right to foreclose on the property. She further
found defendant's answer "failed to create any issue regarding the validity of the
Mortgage and [p]laintiff's right to foreclose it, as required by R[ule] 4:64-
1(c)(2)."
On appeal, defendant contends the trial judge disregarded the "deposition
agreement" between plaintiff and defendant, abused its discretion in granting
plaintiff's motion to strike, and failed to comply with its obligations under Rule
1:7-4. We are unpersuaded by these arguments.
In order to have standing, the "party seeking to foreclose a mortgage must
own or control the underlying debt." Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J.
Super. 592, 597 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418
N.J. Super. 323, 327-28 (Ch. Div. 2010)). Standing is conferred by "either
A-5541-16T3
4
possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the
original complaint." Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super.
315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422
N.J. Super. 214, 216 (App. Div. 2011)).
Here, we are satisfied that plaintiff established a prima facie case for
foreclosure. Plaintiff clearly demonstrated its standing to foreclose on the
property as the assignment of the mortgage from Option One's successor
predated the March 2015 filing of the foreclosure complaint. Upon that
assignment, and underlying transfer of possession, plaintiff became the holder
of the instrument. Additionally, plaintiff provided the original note to the judge
during the oral argument of the motion.
Defendant's remaining arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-5541-16T3
5