H&R BLOCK BANK, ETC. VS. GUY LAGOMARSINO(F-045611-14, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0523-16T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- In 2006 Guy Lagomarsino executed a $588,000 note and mortgage in favor of Equity One on property in Union City; mortgage recorded October 2006. Defendant defaulted in March 2010.
- The mortgage was assigned from Equity One to Option One (recorded 2007), then to Sand Canyon/Option One to plaintiff H&R Block Bank (recorded August 2010).
- Plaintiff obtained possession of the original note on November 23, 2011.
- Plaintiff recorded an assignment of the mortgage to HRB Mortgage Holdings, LLC on March 10, 2014, but that assignment did not transfer the note.
- Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint October 30, 2014; defendant answered and argued plaintiff lacked standing because it had assigned the mortgage to HRB before filing.
- After a bench trial the court found plaintiff possessed the original note prior to filing and therefore had standing; final judgment of foreclosure entered August 29, 2016. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff had standing to foreclose | Plaintiff had possession of the original note before filing, giving statutory standing | Plaintiff lacked standing because it had assigned the mortgage to HRB before filing the complaint | Plaintiff had standing based on possession of the original note; judgment affirmed |
| Whether lack of standing renders judgment void | Not applicable; plaintiff argues it had standing | Defendant implies judgment is invalid if plaintiff lacked standing | Standing is not jurisdictional; lack of standing renders a judgment voidable, not void |
Key Cases Cited
- Seidman v. Clifton Sav. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150 (discusses deference to trial court factfinding in non-jury cases)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (same—credibility and appellate deference)
- State v. Parker, 212 N.J. 269 (appellate review of legal issues de novo)
- Mountain Hill, L.L.C. v. Twp. Comm. of Middletown, 403 N.J. Super. 146 (distinguishing de novo review of legal questions)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Russo, 429 N.J. Super. 91 (holding standing is not jurisdictional; judgment voidable)
- Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (standing can be established by possession of the note or an assignment predating the complaint)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (possession of the original note confers standing to foreclose)