BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. VS. VIOLA STEPHENS (F-048329-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1638-18

Background

Viola Stephens executed a reverse mortgage and note in 2009; taxes went unpaid and Champion (assignee) sent a default notice in 2013. Champion later reassigned the mortgage to Bank of America.
Champion filed foreclosure in December 2013; service and pleading activity were irregular (answers filed by her son Marc, filing‑fee issues, and notices indicating dismissal at various times).
An entry of default was entered October 20, 2015, but the case was dismissed for lack of prosecution November 25, 2016; the matter was later reinstated and Bank of America substituted as plaintiff in early 2018.
Defendant moved to vacate the entry of default; the trial court denied that motion on June 1, 2018 but the record does not contain the court’s accompanying statement of reasons.
The court allowed defendant’s son Marc (not an attorney) to participate in proceedings at times despite acknowledging he lacked authority; a final judgment for $479,922.75 was entered November 20, 2018 and subsequent motions to vacate and for reconsideration were denied.
The Appellate Division remanded because the trial court’s June 1, 2018 decision lacked factual findings and legal conclusions necessary for appellate review, and ordered that Marc may not represent Viola on remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly denied motion to vacate entry of default (Rule 4:43-3 "good cause")	Defendant acted contumaciously and failed to show a meritorious defense; denial proper.	She substantially complied, reasonably believed case was dismissed, filed answers and counterclaims; good cause exists.	Remanded for trial court factual findings and legal conclusions because record lacks the June 1, 2018 reasons; appellate court will not make original fact findings.
Whether court properly denied motions to vacate final judgment / reconsideration	Prior denials and lack of meritorious appealability; equities favor plaintiff.	Plaintiff lacked standing, failed proper service, claims time‑barred, and constitutional rights violated.	Remanded—appellate review precluded by inadequate record; trial court must explain reasoning on the underlying June 1 order.
Whether Marc (nonlawyer, son) could represent defendant	Court permitted him to act based on submitted POA papers.	Marc held a power of attorney / was attorney‑in‑fact for Viola.	Court barred Marc from representing Viola on remand; a power of attorney does not authorize nonlawyers to practice law.
Whether appellate court should exercise original jurisdiction and resolve merits	Plaintiff urged affirmance and asked the court to decide merits.	Defendant sought reversal of defaults and judgments on the record.	Appellate court declined to exercise original jurisdiction because the record was inadequate for factfinding; remand required.

Key Cases Cited

Palombi v. Palombi, 414 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div.) (reconsideration limited to palpably incorrect rulings or overlooked competent evidence)
D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392 (Ch. Div.) (standards for reconsideration articulated)
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (vacating default requires good cause and meritorious defense)
O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106 (good cause inquiry includes absence of contumacious conduct and meritorious defense)
Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263 (appellate original factfinding disfavored when record inadequate)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289 (appellate original factfinding must be exercised sparingly)