NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3327-15T2
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
MAXWELL J. BROTHERS,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
BARBARA J. BROTHERS, HIS WIFE,
AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS
NOMINEE FOR QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________
Submitted June 1, 2017 – Decided July 10, 2017
Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Mercer County, Docket No.
F-29885-09.
Maxwell J. Brothers, appellant pro se.
Stern, Lavinthal & Frankenberg, and Sandelands
Eyet, attorneys for respondent (Robert D.
Bailey, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Maxwell Brothers appeals from a March 16, 2016
order denying his emergent application to stay the sheriff's sale
of property in Ewing Township. We affirm.
Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C.1 filed a foreclosure
complaint against defendants Maxwell Brothers, his wife, Barbara
Brothers, and Quicken Loans on June 8, 2009. No defendant filed
an answer, and default was entered May 18, 2011. Defendant,
Maxwell Brothers, filed an emergent application for a stay on
March 16, 2016, the day of the scheduled sheriff's sale. The
trial court heard argument and considered defendant's emergent
application that day. Defendant argued he was not served with the
foreclosure complaint. The judge denied the application, relying
on the court's JEFIS2 record indicating defendant was served with
the complaint in 2009. This appeal followed.
On appeal, defendant argues the trial court's order should
be reversed because he was never served with the foreclosure
complaint. We disagree.
1
The original plaintiff in this matter was BAC Home Loans
Servicing, L.P. Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. was substituted as
plaintiff by the court in an order dated January 10, 2014.
2
JEFIS stands for Judiciary Electronic Filing and Imaging
System. Defendant asserts he was not shown the JEFIS file in
court but looked at it a few days later.
2 A-3327-15T2
Rule 4:4-3(a) provides,
If personal service cannot be effected after
a reasonable and good faith attempt, . . .
service may be made by mailing a copy of the
summons and complaint by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, to
the usual place of abode of the defendant or
a person authorized by rule of law to accept
service for the defendant or, with postal
instructions to deliver to addressee only, to
defendant's place of business or employment.
If the addressee refuses to claim or accept
delivery of registered or certified mail,
service may be made by ordinary mail addressed
to the defendant's usual place of abode. The
party making service may, at the party's
option, make service simultaneously by
registered or certified mail and ordinary
mail, and if the addressee refuses to claim
or accept delivery of registered mail and if
the ordinary mailing is not returned, the
simultaneous mailing shall constitute
effective service.
The trial judge addressed the issue of service when denying
the emergent application. During the hearing, defendant testified
the property was his residence, but he was never served with the
foreclosure complaint.
A review of the transcript reveals the judge referred to the
court's JEFIS file and discovered plaintiff provided proof to the
court it served defendant by both certified and regular mail.
Plaintiff provided certifications, which stated service had been
completed by certified and regular mail as confirmed by the United
States Postal Service, on December 28, 2009. Plaintiff also
3 A-3327-15T2
included the appropriate electronic confirmation the certified
mail was "unclaimed" and the regular mail was not returned. The
court was satisfied plaintiff established proper service under
Rule 4:4-3.
Moreover, the trial judge advised defendant he had recourse
to seek two statutory adjournments pursuant to the sheriff's
directive about the sale, which defendant had not attempted to do.
We discern no error in the trial judge's finding defendant was
properly served with the complaint. Defendant's chief argument
is the court erred in relying upon the allegedly false submissions
of plaintiff regarding service but provides no demonstration of
error beyond his dissatisfaction with the outcome.
To the extent defendant makes any other arguments, we find
they lack merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion.
R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
4 A-3327-15T2