U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC. VS. KARIN POLHEMUS,Â Â(F-010769-14, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1667-15T3

In 2006 Karin Polhemus executed a $210,000 note and mortgage; the mortgage named MERS as nominee for American Financial Resources (AFR). Wells Fargo later acquired and serviced the loan and indorsed the note in blank.
A pooling and servicing agreement (PSA) for SASCO/Structured Asset Securities Corp. 2006-WF3 governed transfers into the mortgage-backed trust; the PSA had a September 1, 2006 cut-off but allowed additions until September 1, 2008.
Polhemus defaulted in 2008. MERS assigned the mortgage to the trust (plaintiff as Trustee) on March 26, 2008 (recorded Nov. 7, 2008); a second assignment was recorded in 2012 reflecting a shortened trust name.
Wells Fargo, as Trustee Document Custodian and servicer, held the original note and later transferred it to plaintiff’s counsel for litigation; plaintiff filed foreclosure in March 2014.
Polhemus admitted signing and defaulting but challenged plaintiff’s standing, arguing the mortgage wasn’t timely assigned under the PSA. The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiff; Polhemus appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge compliance with the PSA	Plaintiff: borrower lacks standing to enforce or challenge a PSA to which she is not a party; PSA governed by New York law precludes third‑party challenges	Polhemus: she is a third‑party beneficiary and may challenge noncompliance with the PSA (relying on out‑of‑state authority)	Court: Polhemus lacks standing to challenge PSA compliance; New York law and authority hold non‑parties/borrowers may not assert PSA breaches
Proof of possession/ownership of the note and mortgage	Plaintiff: had constructive possession of the original note via Wells Fargo (agent) and had an assignment of mortgage predating the complaint, sufficient under UCC and New Jersey law to confer standing to foreclose	Polhemus: plaintiff did not prove it owned or possessed the note/mortgage at filing	Court: plaintiff established constructive possession through its agent and a valid pre‑complaint assignment; summary judgment affirmed

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (standard for summary judgment review)
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 224 N.J. 189 (N.J. 2016) (de novo review of summary judgment; same legal standard as trial court)
Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 757 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2014) (non‑party to PSA lacks standing to enforce or challenge PSA provisions)
Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016) (borrower may sue for wrongful foreclosure when assignment is void, but court limited its holding and did not resolve PSA validity issues)
Raftogianis v. Bank of N.Y., 418 N.J. Super. 323 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2010) (constructive delivery/possession of notes via custodian/agent can confer enforceable rights)
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011) (foreclosing party generally must own or control the debt; possession of the note or pre‑complaint assignment suffices)