NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2257-15T1
KEARNY FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DIANE ROBERTS, LLC; ROBERT
SCHROEDER; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
FRANK GRASSO; and STEVEN L. WONG,
Defendants-Respondents.
____________________________________
GRACE S. WONG,
Appellant.
____________________________________
Submitted October 17, 2017 – Decided October 27, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County,
Docket No. F-026028-12.
Grace S. Wong, appellant pro se.
Respondents have not filed briefs.
PER CURIAM
This foreclosure action was commenced in 2012. In its
complaint, plaintiff Kearny Federal Savings Bank alleged that
defendant Roberts LLC defaulted on a note for the repayment of
$950,000; Kearny asserted its right, via a mortgage recorded in
2009, to foreclose on Roberts' Toms River property. The complaint
also named as a defendant Steven L. Wong, alleging he, as well as
other defendants, may have possessed subordinate interests on the
property.
During the course of the trial court proceedings, appellant
Grace S. Wong asserts that she received an assignment from Steven
L. Wong of the rights he possessed by way of a mortgage recorded
in his favor on the property in 2011. Her assignment was allegedly
recorded in 2013. Grace seeks to vindicate her alleged rights by
way of this appeal. Because the trial court's disposition of
Grace's assertions was, at best, unclear, we vacate the orders in
question and remand for further proceedings.
In explaining the grounds for our decision, we first observe
that the record on appeal may not contain all that is relevant to
Grace's arguments. The record, for example, contains a motion
filed by Kearny for entry of a final judgment of foreclosure but
does not contain a copy of any final judgment that may have been
entered. The record also includes an assignment of Kearny's rights
2 A-2257-15T1
to another junior lienholder, Frank Grasso. And neither Kearny nor
Grasso have appeared in this appeal.
We discern from what has been presented that Grace argues
Steven's interests – to which she claims to have acceded – had
priority over Kearny's, to which Frank Grasso acceded. She also
argues that the trial court made rulings in derogation of an
applicable bankruptcy stay. In making these arguments, Grace
specifically seeks our review of a January 8, 2016 trial court
order that denied her motion to amend a November 20, 2015 order,
which denied a motion to reconsider. To examine the validity of
these orders we must go back even further in the record.
The judge we will refer to as the third judge,1 who entered
the January 8, 2016 order, explained only – in a statement
appearing within the body of the order – that Grace's application
was denied with prejudice because it was "essentially [seeking]
reconsider[ation]" of the second judge's September 18, 2015 order.
The second judge explained his ruling in a cogent written
opinion. From that opinion, we learn that Grace successfully moved
1
Because of the confusing procedural history and the involvement
of at least three judges in this case, we will refer to the judge
who entered the order under review as "the third judge." The third
judge, as we have observed, entered the order in reliance on
another judge's September 18, 2015 order and decision; we refer
to that judge as "the second judge." And in his ruling, the second
judge referred to the rulings of an earlier judge, who we will
refer to as "the first judge."
3 A-2257-15T1
to intervene in 2013 but did not file an answer as required by a
September 12, 2013 order, which was entered by the first judge.
Soon after the September 12, 2013 order, the first judge denied
another request by Grace to intervene; the first judge so ruled
because defendant Roberts LLC was involved in bankruptcy
proceedings. The first judge's order stated that "[i]n the event
the [b]ankruptcy stay is lifted" this litigation "may proceed" and
Grace "may refile the motion to intervene."
The second judge's September 18, 2015 written opinion
recognizes there were two motions before him – one by Frank Grasso
to be substituted for Kearny and the other by Grace to intervene.
The former was granted because the only opposition, which came
from Grace, was found irrelevant because, according to the second
judge, she did not have standing to complain of the substitution.
The latter was denied because the second judge found that Grace
did "not provide[] sufficient evidence that intervention is
necessary at this time." The order then entered, however, refers
only to Frank Grasso's motion to substitute for Kearny; the order
provides no disposition of Grace's motion.
Coming full circle, the third judge's order denying
intervention – that which is before us – relies on the second
judge's reasoning for denying Grace's earlier motion to intervene.
In fact, the second judge only determined, for reasons that elude
4 A-2257-15T1
us, that intervention was not "necessary at th[at] time," and no
order was entered one way or the other.
Based only on what is before us, we reverse the January 8,
2016 order under review2 and remand for further proceedings
regarding Grace's attempts to intervene. Whatever form the remand
proceedings take, the trial court should offer the interested
parties an opportunity to fully assert their positions regarding
Grace's attempts to intervene and provide a thorough explanation
for the court's disposition of that question.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
2
The record on appeal also contains a March 30, 2016 order that
appears nearly identical to the January 8, 2016 order. Because the
former was entered after this appeal was filed, the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to enter it, R. 2:9-1(a); the March 30 order
is hereby vacated for that reason. For what it's worth, the March
30 order adds nothing to our understanding of this matter or the
reasons for the court's repeated denial of Grace's attempts to
intervene.
5 A-2257-15T1