U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ETC. v. THOMAS U. ROGERS (F-023883-15, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1313-20

Background:

In 2006 Thomas Rogers executed a $190,800 note to New Century; a mortgage, recorded with MERS as nominee, secured the loan. New Century later entered bankruptcy and the disposition of the original note after liquidation is unclear.
MERS assigned the mortgage to Bank of America (BOA) in 2009; BOA filed foreclosure in 2009 claiming possession of the note, and defendant (Frances Rogers) made payments through Litton/Ocwen in 2009–2010, prompting BOA to voluntarily dismiss the action in 2013.
BOA assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank in April 2014; U.S. Bank filed a new foreclosure complaint on July 6, 2015, alleging it possessed the note when it filed.
U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment in June 2016; the foreclosure judge granted summary judgment on September 13, 2016, finding U.S. Bank was the holder of the note and mortgage and striking defendant’s answer and defenses.
The record contained inconsistent evidence about who possessed the note when the 2015 complaint was filed: an Ocwen certification (filed 2016) asserted U.S. Bank possessed the note since December 8, 2006, while BOA had earlier claimed possession in 2009; the chain of assignment of the physical note after New Century’s liquidation is not documented in the record.
The Appellate Division held this inconsistency created a material factual dispute about U.S. Bank’s standing at the time of filing; it vacated the September 13, 2016 summary-judgment order and any subsequent orders as void ab initio, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to foreclose (possession of note / assignment)	U.S. Bank: possessed the note and had mortgage assignment; thus had standing.	Rogers: record shows conflicting claims of possession (BOA in 2009 vs. U.S. Bank certification claiming possession since 2006); chain of note custody unclear.	Vacated SJ — material dispute over whether U.S. Bank possessed the note when complaint was filed; standing not conclusively established.
Effect of prior federal dismissal on Rogers’s defenses/counterclaims	U.S. Bank: federal dismissal precludes defendant’s counterclaims and supports dismissal.	Rogers: federal dismissal was based on pleading defects, not merits, and does not resolve standing/disputed facts here.	Appellate panel did not disturb the trial court’s December 4, 2015 order dismissing counterclaims but noted the federal dismissal was procedural; court’s reversal focused on standing defect, not collateral estoppel.
Sufficiency of summary judgment evidence (possession certifications, servicer affidavits)	U.S. Bank: Ocwen certification and recorded mortgage assignment demonstrate possession and entitlement to judgment.	Rogers: certification was submitted after filing, contains inconsistencies (possible typo), and does not reconcile BOA’s earlier possession claim; servicer certifications may be insufficient without chain of possession.	Evidence on record was insufficiently clear; plaintiff may renew SJ with additional evidence but trial court erred in granting SJ on current record.
Whether further discovery or ability to oppose SJ was denied	U.S. Bank: not directly argued; relied on existing record.	Rogers: sought additional discovery and production to clarify chain of title and servicer authority.	Appellate court directed that if U.S. Bank renews SJ it may submit additional evidence and Rogers must be allowed to respond; reversal permits further fact development.

Key Cases Cited

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011) (possession of note or pre-filing mortgage assignment supports standing)
Deutsch Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2012) (possession of the note confers standing)
Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, 455 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2018) (when note is separated from mortgage, plaintiff must show both possession of the note and mortgage assignment before filing)
Residential Mortg. Loan Tr. 2013-TT2 v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap., Inc., 457 N.J. Super. 237 (App. Div. 2018) (requirement to prove ownership/control of note when separated from mortgage)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2011) (plaintiff must own or control the debt at time of filing to foreclose)
Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567 (2021) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (standard for ruling on summary judgment)