WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. VS. ANNA MARIE FORTEÂ (F-031426-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0247-14T4

In August 2007 the Fortes executed a $1,060,000 note and mortgage to World Savings Bank, which later became Wachovia and then Wells Fargo by merger; the mortgage was recorded.
A federal class action against Wachovia over its "Pick‑a‑Payment" loans settled in December 2010; the Fortes were members of Settlement Class B and received and cashed a $178.04 settlement check.
The federal settlement provided mailed notice with an opt‑out procedure and the Northern District of California expressly retained continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement.
The Fortes defaulted on the note in March 2012; Wells Fargo filed a foreclosure complaint in September 2013, and moved for summary judgment and to uphold the federal settlement in December 2013.
The Chancery judge granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, upheld the class settlement as preclusive, dismissed defendants' discovery‑based defenses, and a final foreclosure judgment entered August 1, 2014.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wells Fargo could foreclose (standing/validity of mortgage)	Wells Fargo, as successor by merger and holder of the mortgage/note, made a prima facie showing of right to foreclose	Fortes contended loan was void/unenforceable and challenged enforceability	Court: Wells Fargo demonstrated standing; foreclosure proper — summary judgment affirmed
Preclusive effect of federal class settlement	Settlement is entitled to full faith and credit; Fortes accepted settlement (cashed check) and are bound, barring their claims here	Fortes argued the settlement did not preclude their defenses and alleged inadequate notice or other bases to avoid release	Court: Federal settlement satisfied due‑process notice requirements or was waived by cashing the check; settlement precludes Fortes' claims
Adequacy of notice / due process for class members	Notice by mail/publication was adequate and the settlement court retained jurisdiction	Fortes argued they lacked actual notice and therefore were not bound	Court: Minimum procedural requirements (notice and opt‑out opportunity) met; even if actual receipt disputed, cashing the check constituted waiver
Dismissal for failure to provide discovery	Wells Fargo moved to dismiss deficiencies in defendants’ discovery responses	Fortes claim they complied with case management discovery deadlines	Court: Trial judge properly dismissed discovery‑based defenses where appropriate; motion granted

Wilson ex rel. Manzano v. City of Jersey City, 209 N.J. 558 (N.J. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (summary judgment evidentiary standard)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (N.J. 1995) (de novo review of legal issues)
Watkins v. Resorts Int'l Hotel & Casino, 124 N.J. 398 (N.J. 1991) (full faith and credit and preclusive effect of federal judgments)
Simmermon v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 196 N.J. 316 (N.J. 2008) (due‑process notice requirements for class judgments)
Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1982) (notice and opportunity to be heard for class actions)
Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388 (Ch. Div. 1993) (material issues in foreclosure proceedings)
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011) (standing requires possession of the note or assignment predating complaint)
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2012) (possession of the note or timely assignment confers standing)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2011) (standing and foreclosure principles)
Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323 (Ch. Div. 2010) (ownership/control of underlying debt requirement)