STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. DERRICK WASHINGTON(10-06-1210, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1181-15T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Mehmet Sarhan executed a $382,500 promissory note and mortgage in January 2006; mortgage was initially registered to MERS.
- The loan was transferred through Fremont entities and ultimately placed in the GSAMP 2006-FM1 trust; MERS assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank as trustee on May 20, 2008.
- Sarhan defaulted on February 1, 2008; plaintiff sent a Notice of Intent to Foreclose and filed a foreclosure complaint on May 21, 2008.
- Sarhan’s early answer was stricken for lack of meritorious defenses; the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute in 2013 and reinstated in 2014.
- Judge Hansbury granted plaintiff’s motion to strike Sarhan’s later answer, finding plaintiff had possession of the note and mortgage assignment predating the complaint; matter proceeded as uncontested and final judgment entered November 23, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to foreclose | Deutsche Bank owned/controlled the debt via mortgage assignment and possession of the note | Sarhan argued plaintiff lacked possession of the note and thus lacked standing | Court held plaintiff had standing: assignment from MERS dated May 20, 2008 predated complaint and conferred holder status |
| Sufficiency of defenses | Plaintiff argued no meritorious defenses existed and moved to strike answers | Sarhan asserted various consumer-protection and standing-related objections (broad challenges to lender practices) | Court found no material factual disputes; answers were stricken and matter treated as uncontested |
| Requirement to prove ownership/control | Plaintiff claimed assignment and possession satisfied the requirement to proceed | Sarhan contended plaintiff must prove stricter criteria to recover on the note | Court applied New Jersey precedent: possession of the note or assignment of mortgage before complaint suffices for standing |
| Relief from final judgment | Plaintiff sought entry of final judgment after uncontested unit processing | Sarhan sought relief arguing deficiencies in plaintiff's proof | Court denied relief; Sarhan presented no documentary evidence to rebut plaintiff’s proof |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div.) (party seeking foreclosure must own or control the debt)
- Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323 (Ch. Div.) (standing by possession of the note or timely mortgage assignment)
- Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div.) (standing conferred by note possession or assignment predating complaint)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div.) (same standing principles applied)