LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST VS. MARTHA DEARTEAGA, (F-044020-10, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-2844-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 23, 2017Background
- In 2004 the DeArteagas executed a mortgage with Beneficial New Jersey, Inc.; they defaulted in 2009 and Beneficial filed foreclosure in 2010.
- Beneficial moved for summary judgment in 2012; the judge granted summary judgment but required a revised notice of intent to foreclose (NOI) because the NOI listed a different lender name related to a merger.
- Beneficial's summary judgment was later followed by substitution of plaintiff: LSF8 Master Participation Trust was substituted and an assignment from Beneficial to LSF8 was recorded in 2014.
- Defendants challenged standing of LSF8, alleged procedural defects with NOIs and assignment timing, and sought dismissal and later vacatur of final judgment entered in January 2016.
- The trial court required LSF8 to produce the original note, allonge, authenticated copies, and a certification; LSF8 produced the note/allonge and certification after the court ordered it.
- Defendants appealed the 2012 summary judgment order and the 2016 orders denying vacatur and approving final judgment, claiming lack of standing and denial of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substituted plaintiff (LSF8) had standing to foreclose | LSF8 showed transfer/indorsement and produced note/allonge and certification establishing it as holder | LSF8 relied on counsel statements only; assignment and NOI timing show lack of standing | Held: LSF8 sufficiently established standing via production of note/allonge, viewing of originals, and certification |
| Whether trial court erred in granting summary judgment in 2012 | Beneficial relied on merged-entity status and record to support entitlement to judgment | Defendants argued NOI discrepancies and lack of standing meant judgment improper | Held: Summary judgment affirmed; court had addressed NOI discrepancy and allowed corrective steps (revised NOI) |
| Whether final judgment should be vacated under R. 4:50-1 due to evidentiary/standing defects | LSF8 cured defects by producing authenticated note/allonge and certification | Defendants argued the omissions and timing warranted vacatur | Held: Denial of vacatur affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion and LSF8 remedied deficiencies |
| Whether judge's questioning at 2012 hearing deprived defendants of due process | Plaintiff does not contest judge's inquiries as improper; proceedings were necessary given pro se parties | Defendants contend judge acted as counsel for Beneficial and was biased | Held: No due process violation; judicial questioning of pro se parties and counsel was within permissible bounds and not advocacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Walker v. Atl. Chrysler Plymouth, 216 N.J. Super. 255 (test for genuine issue of fact on summary judgment)
- Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (deferential review of Rule 4:50-1 denials)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (standards for relief under Rule 4:50-1)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (holder/standing principles for foreclosure)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592 (indorsement and possession requirements for standing)
- Band's Refuse Removal, Inc. v. Fair Lawn, 62 N.J. Super. 522 (limits on judicial participation to avoid acting as advocate)