NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0903-19
SANTANDER BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
NORA V. LOPEZ,
Defendant,
and
NESTOR LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Argued April 13, 2021– Decided June 23, 2021
Before Judges Gilson and Gummer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Hudson County, Docket No. F-
022683-18.
Nestor Lopez, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Michael E. Eskenzai argued the cause for respondent
(Friedman Vartolo LLP, attorneys; Michael E.
Eskenzai, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential mortgage foreclosure case, defendant Nestor Lopez
appeals (1) an order granting plaintiff summary judgment, striking defendant's
answer, and denying defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint; (2) final
judgment; and (3) an order in which, among other things, the trial court reduced
the final judgment by $37,457.54 because plaintiff had impermissibly charged
late fees.
Defendant argues:
The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion granting
Plaintiff Summary Judgment and denying Defendant's
Cross-Motion for Dismissal.
The Trial Court erred and abused its discretion by not
awarding Defendant statutory damages pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 46:10B-29.
The Chancery court reviewed the undisputed facts and found defendants
had defaulted on the note and mortgage, defendants had no viable defenses, and
plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment. Thereafter, the court entered final
judgment based on the established proofs. We find insufficient merit in
A-0903-19
2
defendant's arguments to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
In responding to defendant's appeal and not by cross-appeal, plaintiff
argues the trial court erred in reducing the final judgment by $37,457.54 and
asks us to vacate that aspect of the order. "Without cross-appealing, a party may
argue points the trial court either rejected or did not address, so long as those
arguments are in support of the trial court's order," State v. Eldakroury, 439 N.J.
Super. 304, 307 n.2 (App. Div. 2015), but "a respondent must cross-appeal to
obtain relief from a judgment," Reich v. Borough of Fort Lee Zoning Bd. of
Adjustment, 414 N.J. Super. 483, 499 n.9 (App. Div. 2010). Because plaintiff
did not cross-appeal, we decline to consider plaintiff's challenge to part of the
final judgment.
Affirmed.
A-0903-19
3