PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION VS. AGRIPPA M. WIGGINS(F-35041-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-4011-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 8, 2017Background
- In 2007 Wiggins executed a promissory note and mortgage (MERS as nominee for MetLife). He defaulted in 2011. MetLife endorsed the note to PHH and MERS assigned the mortgage to PHH before PHH filed foreclosure in Oct. 2013.
- Wiggins was served but did not respond; default and a final judgment were entered July 24, 2014, followed by a writ of execution.
- Eleven months later Wiggins moved (May 2015) to stay the sheriff’s sale, vacate the judgment, and dismiss, alleging PHH lacked standing. The court heard and denied that motion (July 24, 2015); the property sold Jan. 28, 2016 and later deeded to Fannie Mae.
- Wiggins filed a second motion (Mar. 2016, ~20 months after judgment) again seeking vacatur of the judgment and vacatur of the sheriff’s sale, raising standing, fraud, and predatory-lending claims. The court denied relief (Apr. 15, 2016).
- Wiggins appealed only the denials of the two motions to vacate the final judgment and the denial (in part) as to vacating the sheriff’s sale; he did not brief dismissal issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying Wiggins' first Rule 4:50-1(a) motion to vacate (excusable neglect / meritorious defense) | PHH showed it had standing: it possessed the note and had assignment of mortgage; Wiggins defaulted | Wiggins claimed excusable neglect for not answering and that PHH lacked standing (meritorious defense) | Denial affirmed: Wiggins offered no evidence of excusable neglect and record showed PHH had standing, so no meritorious defense shown |
| Whether Wiggins could obtain relief under Rule 4:50-1(a)/(b)/(c) in second motion filed >1 year after judgment | PHH: Rule 4:50-2 bars motions under (a)/(b)/(c) filed after one year | Wiggins raised similar standing/fraud/new-defenses in 2016 motion | Denial affirmed: time-bar applies; (a)/(b)/(c) relief unavailable because motion was filed >1 year after judgment |
| Whether the judgment is void under Rule 4:50-1(d) because PHH lacked standing | PHH argued standing existed at filing (possession/assignment) so judgment valid | Wiggins argued lack of standing rendered judgment void | Denial affirmed: lack of standing is not jurisdictional; does not make judgment void under (d) |
| Whether exceptional circumstances justify vacatur under Rule 4:50-1(f) | PHH: no exceptional circumstances; delay, nonparticipation, and record showing standing defeat equitable relief | Wiggins argued fraud, note irregularities, predatory transaction, and resulting injustice | Denial affirmed: no truly exceptional circumstances or grave injustice; record showed PHH had standing and Wiggins delayed and failed to timely contest |
Key Cases Cited
- Mancini v. EDS ex rel. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n, 132 N.J. 330 (1993) (trial court’s grant/denial of Rule 4:50-1 relief reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- US Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012) (balancing finality and equity; standard for Rule 4:50-1(f) relief)
- Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88 (2007) (defining abuse of discretion standard)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Russo, 429 N.J. Super. 91 (App. Div. 2012) (standing is not jurisdictional; lack of standing does not render foreclosure judgment void under Rule 4:50-1(d))
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011) (possession of the note or an assignment before filing confers standing in foreclosure)
- Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2012) (Rule 4:50-2 bars (a)/(b)/(c) motions filed more than one year after judgment)
- Housing Auth. of Morristown v. Little, 135 N.J. 274 (1994) (Rule 4:50-1(f) relief confined to truly exceptional circumstances)
- Court Inv. Co. v. Perillo, 48 N.J. 334 (1966) (equity supports broad relief under (f) only in extreme cases)