LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC VS. JOHN JUBELT Â (F-031413-14, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3761-15T4

In 2009 John Jubelt executed a $242,165 note and mortgage to MERS as nominee for United Northern Mortgage Bankers to buy out his ex‑wife's interest; he defaulted in 2011.
The mortgage was assigned from MERS to Bank of America and later to Lakeview Loan Servicing (plaintiff); the assignment to Lakeview was recorded before plaintiff sued.
Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint in July 2014 after sending a notice of intent to foreclose; Jubelt asserted multiple defenses including predatory lending, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA).
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, submitting a bank officer’s certification and business records showing possession of the note and an allonge evidencing the assignment.
The trial court dismissed Jubelt’s CFA and FFA claims, allowed additional discovery, later granted summary judgment to plaintiff, and entered final judgment of foreclosure on March 24, 2016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing/Right to foreclose	Lakeview was holder/possessed the note and had a valid assignment	Jubelt challenged admissibility of hearsay proof and standing	Court held Lakeview established standing as holder; admissible business records and an allonge independently supported standing
Sufficiency for prima facie foreclosure	Execution, recording, and nonpayment established right to foreclose	Jubelt conceded execution and recording and did not dispute default	Court held plaintiff met prima facie requirements and was entitled to judgment
Evidentiary rulings re: business records	Business‑records exception allowed bank certification and records	Jubelt argued certification was inadmissible hearsay	Court reviewed for abuse of discretion, found no abuse; even if error, it was harmless due to the allonge
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) defense	N/A (plaintiff denied unlawful conduct)	Jubelt claimed predatory lending and sought CFA damages/treble relief	Court held Jubelt failed to prove an ascertainable loss or unlawful practice; CFA defense and counterclaims were dismissed

Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (de novo standard on summary judgment review)
Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162 (summary judgment standard overview)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
Thorpe v. Floremoore Corp., 20 N.J. Super. 34 (requirements for prima facie foreclosure)
Somerset Tr. Co. v. Sternberg, 238 N.J. Super. 279 (foreclosure prerequisites)
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (standing requires ownership or control of debt)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592 (who may enforce a negotiable instrument)
Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369 (abuse of discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., L.L.C., 203 N.J. 496 (elements of a Consumer Fraud Act claim)
Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 183 N.J. 234 (definition of ascertainable loss under the CFA)