NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1011-18T3
BAYVIEW LOAN
SERVICING, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ERIC HAYDEN,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
FORREST HILLS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted January 7, 2020 – Decided January 30, 2020
Before Judges Hoffman and Firko.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-
014738-13.
Eric Hayden, appellant pro se.
Knuckles Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, attorneys for
respondent (John E. Brigandi, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this foreclosure action, defendant Eric Hayden appeals from an April
27, 2015 order granting plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC's motion for
summary judgment, a January 22, 2018 order granting plaintiff's second motion
for summary judgment, a September 20, 2018 order denying defendant's motion
for reconsideration, a September 20, 2018 order denying defendant's motion to
fix the amount due, and a September 25, 2018 order granting plaintiff final
judgment. We affirm all orders.
We briefly summarize the relevant facts and procedural history. On May
15, 2006, defendant executed a promissory note in favor of Security Atlantic
Mortgage Company in the principal amount of $161,029.00. The note was
secured by defendant's property in Newark and recorded in the Office of the
Essex County Clerk on June 7, 2006. Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS), was the lender's nominee.
On April 1, 2012, defendant failed to make the monthly payment on the
note and thereafter did not make any further payments. On June 12, 2012,
MERS assigned the mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and the assignment
was recorded in the Office of the Essex County Clerk.
A-1011-18T3
2
On May 1, 2013, Wells Fargo filed an initial foreclosure complaint in the
Chancery Division, and defendant filed an answer on July 8, 2013. On March
11, 2015, Wells Fargo filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to strike
defendant's answer, which was unopposed. The motion was granted on April
27, 2015.
On January 12, 2016, the mortgage was assigned to the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, and the assignment was recorded in the Office
of the Essex County Clerk. On that same day, the mortgage was assigned to
plaintiff and the assignment was recorded in the Office of the Essex County
Clerk. On June 13, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint to include
condominium liens, and defendant filed an answer on August 1, 2017. Plaintiff
moved for summary judgment seeking to strike defendant's answer and
defendant opposed the motion. On January 22, 2018, the Chancery Division
granted plaintiff's motion.
On March 29, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for final judgment. Defendant
opposed the motion and filed a motion to fix the amount due. Plaintiff opposed
defendant's motion to fix the amount due. Additionally, on May 16, 2018,
defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the January 22, 2018 order
granting summary judgment to plaintiff. Both of defendant's motions were
A-1011-18T3
3
denied. The Chancery Division granted plaintiff's motion for final judgment on
September 25, 2018.
On appeal, defendant contends that plaintiff did not prove it had standing
to bring an action to foreclose upon the subject property. He argues that the
submissions in support of Wells Fargo's 2015 motion for summary judgment did
not prove it possessed the note on the day the complaint was filed. Defendant
further claims that plaintiff did not establish the chain of assignments necessary
to confer standing on plaintiff.
We are convinced from our review of the record that defendant's
arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). However, we add the following comments.
Defendant argues that plaintiff did not have standing to foreclose on the
mortgage. We have held, however, that "either possession of the note or an
assignment of the mortgage that predate[s] the original complaint confer[s]
standing" to foreclose. Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J.
Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) (citation omitted).
To have standing to bring a foreclosure action, a plaintiff "must own or
control the underlying debt." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422
N.J. Super. 214, 222 (App. Div. 2011); (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford,
A-1011-18T3
4
418 N.J. Super. 592, 597 (App. Div. 2011)). The Uniform Commercial Code
(UCC), specifically N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301, addresses in pertinent part who may
enforce a negotiable instrument such as a mortgage:
"Person entitled to enforce" an instrument means the
holder of the instrument, a nonholder in possession of
the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or a
person not in possession of the instrument who is
entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to 12A:3-
309 or subsection d. of 12A:3-418.
To qualify as the "holder" of a mortgage who can enforce it, plaintiff must
show, "transfer of possession of the instrument and its indorsement by the
holder." Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. at 223 (quoting N.J.S.A. 12A:3-201(b)). In
this case, plaintiff established that the mortgage had been assigned to Wells
Fargo before it filed the foreclosure complaint. The Chancery Division correctly
found that Wells Fargo had standing to initiate the foreclosure action, and
thereafter, the mortgage was assigned to plaintiff, which had standing to pursue
the matter to final judgment.
In addition, defendant argues that plaintiff cannot foreclose unless it can
enforce the note that is secured by the mortgage. According to defendant, Wells
Fargo had to establish that it had physical possession of the note, or that the note
had been endorsed to it. However, as stated previously, plaintiff may foreclose
A-1011-18T3
5
by showing that it either had a valid assignment of the mortgage or possession
of the note before the foreclosure complaint was filed. See Ibid.
In this case, Wells Fargo presented the Chancery Division with a
certification of Jeremiah Herberg, a Vice President for Loan Documentation in
support of its first motion for summary judgement. In his certification, Herberg
stated that Wells Fargo was in possession of the note prior to May 1, 2013 when
the complaint was filed. Herberg also stated that the mortgage was assigned to
Wells Fargo on June 7, 2012, prior to the commencement of the foreclosure
action. Defendant did not oppose plaintiff's motion and it was granted by the
Chancery Division. In its statement of reasons, the Chancery Division found
plaintiff demonstrated execution and recording of the note and mortgage and
default, and Wells Fargo had possession of the note when the complaint was
filed. The Chancery Division noted that defendant failed to provide any factual
support for his ten affirmative defenses.
Defendant also contends the note was not endorsed to plaintiff, but the
note was endorsed in blank. In support of its second motion for summary
judgment, plaintiff presented the Chancery Division with a certification of Brian
Nwabarra, a Document Coordinator. In his certification, Nwabarra stated Wells
Fargo was in possession of the note prior to the commencement of the
A-1011-18T3
6
foreclosure action and had possession of the original note when he executed his
certification. Attached to Nwbarra's certification was a certified copy of the
original note with the endorsement in blank.
Defendant did not refute the declarations contained in Nwbarra's
certification. Based on the undisputed factual record, the Chancery Division
rejected defendant's contention that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue the
foreclosure. The Chancery Division noted that defendant admitted to execution
of the note and affidavit, and that the mortgage was recorded. Since defendant
had no other defense to the action, the Chancery Division granted summary
judgment to defendant by its order of January 22, 2018.
Because the record established the right of plaintiff to enforce the note by
competent evidence, and because defendant had no defense other than his
challenge to standing, the Chancery Division correctly entered summary
judgment in favor of plaintiff and appropriately denied defendant's motions for
reconsideration and to fix the amount due.
Affirmed.
A-1011-18T3
7