NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3200-15T2
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TRESSA M. BRIDGES, MR.
BRIDGES, husband of
TRESSA M. BRIDGES, JARVIS
B. BRIDGES,
Defendants-Appellants.
_____________________________
Argued May 8, 2018 – Decided June 25, 2018
Before Judges Reisner, Hoffman and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Atlantic County, Docket No.
F-018541-14.
Tressa M. Bridges, appellant, argued the cause
pro se.
Jason R. Lipkin argued the cause for
respondent (Winston & Strawn, LLP, attorneys;
Jason R. Lipkin, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, defendant
Tressa M. Bridges (defendant) appeals from the Chancery Division's
March 10, 2016 final judgment of foreclosure and from two earlier
orders: a June 1, 2015 order granting summary judgment to plaintiff
Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), and an August 31, 2015 order denying
defendant's motion for reconsideration. Defendant's primary
argument throughout the litigation and now on appeal is that BANA
is not the holder of the note and therefore lacks standing to
foreclose, and that BANA failed to comply with N.J.S.A. 2A:50-5 —
the notice provisions of the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A.
2A:50-53 to -73. We disagree and affirm.
On June 27, 2007, defendant's now ex-husband, defendant
Jarvis B. Bridges (Jarvis),1 borrowed $246,905 from Atlantic Coast
Mortgage Services, Inc. (Atlantic) and executed a note evidencing
the indebtedness. The same day, Jarvis and defendant executed a
thirty-year purchase money mortgage in favor of Mortgage
Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for
Atlantic, encumbering the Galloway Township home Jarvis purchased.
The note provided for monthly payments of $1580.96.
In October 2010, the loan went into default. On January 27,
2011, MERS assigned the subject mortgage to BAC Home Loan
Servicing, LP (BAC); effective July 1, 2011, BANA became the
1
For clarity, and intending no disrespect, we refer to this
defendant as Jarvis. In January 2013, Jarvis conveyed title to
the subject property to defendant.
2 A-3200-15T2
successor to BAC by de jure merger. The county clerk of Atlantic
County recorded the assignment on July 28, 2011.
On June 3, 2013, plaintiff sent Jarvis a notice of intention
to foreclose (NOI) by certified and regular mail, as required by
N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56. The NOI stated "[i]f the default is not cured
on or before July 13, 2013, the mortgage payments will be
accelerated and [the lender] may take steps to terminate your
ownership interest in the property by commencing a foreclosure
suit in a court of competent jurisdiction." The NOI further
advised of "the right to cure the default, in other words, the
amount required to bring the loan current" within forty days.
After defendants failed to cure the default, BANA filed a
foreclosure complaint in May 2014. Defendant filed a contesting
answer and asserted a counterclaim alleging consumer fraud. On
October 24, 2014, the trial court dismissed the counterclaim with
prejudice.
In March 2015, BANA filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the trial court initially granted on May 4, 2015. The court
vacated that order to allow defendant to present oral argument,
which the court heard over two days, on May 15 and 22, 2015.
On June 1, 2015, the trial court again granted summary
judgment in favor of plaintiff and issued a written opinion setting
forth its findings and conclusions. The court "deemed" the matter
3 A-3200-15T2
"un-contested," citing defendant's answer as containing "general
denials with bald unsupported allegations of misrepresentations
and fraud," and stating "[a] majority of the documents attached
to [d]efendant's opposition . . . are impermissible hearsay and
not competent evidence to contradict [p]laintiff's motion." The
judge also found plaintiff had a prima facie right to foreclose,
as the mortgage and loan document are valid, the mortgage loan was
in default, and plaintiff has "a contractual right to resort to
the mortgaged premises in satisfaction of the debt."
Defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration and two
objections to the trial court's rulings. The trial court denied
the motion for reconsideration. After denying two subsequent
motions challenging the trial court's decisions, the court entered
final judgment in favor of plaintiff on March 10, 2016, ordering
"the mortgaged premises be sold" to satisfy the amount owed to
plaintiff, $353,997.67. This appeal followed.
On appeal defendant claims BANA is not the holder of the note
and therefore lacks standing to foreclose. Defendant also claims
the NOI failed to comply with the FFA.
These arguments lack merit, as the undisputed evidence
established BANA acquired the note prior to the service of the NOI
and remained in possession of the note throughout the proceedings.
BANA established with legally competent proofs and certifications
4 A-3200-15T2
the validity of the mortgage, the amount of indebtedness, and the
right of the mortgagee to resort to the mortgaged premises.
Defendant failed to present legally competent evidence to support
any of her allegations.
We have considered defendant's arguments in light of our
review of the record and the applicable legal principles. We find
her arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially
for the reasons expressed by the trial court in its cogent oral
and written decisions. We only reiterate that defendant did not
establish any defense to the validity of the mortgage, the amount
owed, or plaintiff's right to seek and obtain foreclosure. See
Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div.
1993), aff'd, 273 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 1994) ("The only
material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of
the mortgage, the amount of indebtedness, and the right of the
mortgagee to resort to the mortgaged premises.").
Affirmed.
5 A-3200-15T2