Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DAVID
216RIVER AVENUE
LAKEWOOD,NJ 08701
908-907-0953
ATTORNEY FORE DEFENDANTS
v. CIVIL ACTION
Defendants.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Lakewood, NJ
On the Brief
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Plaintiff has filed a second Motion to Strike Defendant's answer which relies on
factually inapplicable decisional law; ignores the threshold issue of legal standing; fails to
Certification of counsel for Plaintiff which is not made on personal knowledge and which
is in fact based on incompetent hearsay. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the absence of
genuine issues of material fact and has failed sustain its burden to be entitled to the
Plaintiff relies on the holding of Central Penn. Nat'l Bank v. Stonebridge, 185 N.J. 289,
309-310 (Ch. Div. 1982) in alleged support of its request to strike the contesting answer
of the Defendants. A close reading of the Central Penn opinion reveals that Plaintiff’s
reliance is misplaced, as that case deals with an application for a sheriff sale. Contrary to
plaintiff attorney's statement that the only issues a Plaintiff must establish are the validity
of the mortgage , the amount of the indebtedness, and the right to resort to the mortgaged
premises for satisfaction of the debt is not the case in today's environment, especially ,
where the Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued an order requiring six banks and other
lenders to show cause why foreclosures should not be halted in New Jersey based on the
Pleading and Document Irregularities Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division-
General Equity Part, Mercer County Docket No. F-59553-10. This case is on the New
Jersey Court web page in the public domain. Plaintiff counsel's argument that there are
only three issues as a matter of fact, is misleading, especially in light of the fact that the
instant case has an assignment issued by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
which is precisely an issue that the Court is attempting to scrutinize and rectify.
Plaintiff Counsel's statement that Defendants answers are mere attempts to delay and are
boilerplate is totally off the mark. First of all, before accusations are made, Plaintiff's
Counsel should be above the board and look itself in the mirror. Moreover, a close look at
it's complaints will clearly reveal boiler plate language in all of it's points. The only thing
that is changed is the name of the mortgagor, mortgagee, physical address of the
mortgage premises, the amount of debt, and dates of default. Everything else that Plaintiff
files is boilerplate. Even the memos are boilerplate. Plaintiff's counsel quotes the same
cases in every motion. I take issue with Counsel's unfounded assertions that Defendant is
case where the creditor comes in with a tow truck and takes the car away. Foreclosure
matters present complicated issues as noted by Judge Todd in Bank of New York v.
Michael J. Raftogianis, Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County, docket no. F-
7356-09.
Answers are governed by Rule.4:6-2, that requires that every defense to an action, legal
this action and made specific denials in their answer. There is nothing boilerplate about
that.
The Courts of New Jersey have apparently not addressed the specific factual situation in
this case. In instances where there is no New Jersey case “on point”, the Courts of New
Jersey have utilized opinions from other jurisdictions for guidance. (See, e.g., Greate Bay
Hotel & Casino, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City, 264 N.J.Super. 213, 217-218, 624 A.2d 102
Jersey case explicitly dealt with types of trusts in case); Gregory v. Allstate Insurance
Company, 315 N.J.Super. 78, 82-83, 716 A.2d 573 (N.J.Super.L. 1997)(analyzing split of
collision was covered by uninsured motorist coverage). The Courts of the State of New
York have been repeatedly presented with the legal standing issues in foreclosure actions
raised in this case, and have consistently held that when there is no proof that the
foreclosing party had the requisite legal interest in the mortgage and note at the time that
it filed the foreclosure action that dismissal of the action was proper.
In mortgage foreclosure actions (as in all actions), the foreclosing party must have
blocked. …Standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the
law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s
request….If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action.
citing Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 NY2d 801, 812
[2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003]; Caprer v. Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 181 [2d
Dept 2006]; Stark v. Goldberg, 297 A2d 203 [1st Dept 2002].
Where there is no evidence that the plaintiff, prior to commencing a foreclosure action, is
the holder of the mortgage and note or took physical delivery of the mortgage and note or
that same were conveyed by written assignment, the plaintiff did not have standing to
institute the action. New Century Mortgage Corporation v. Durden et al., 2009 NY Slip
Op 50175(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/2/09), citing Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. V. Peabody,
20 Misc. 3d 1108A (Sup.Ct. Saratoga County 2008) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
v. Taylor, 17 Misc. 3d 595 (Sup.Ct. Suffolk County 2007) and additional cases cited
therein.
A plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the
plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest, and where an assignment of the mortgage post-
dates the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff does not have the requisite ownership
interest at the time of filing. As a foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one
who has no title to it and absent a legally effective transfer of the debt, the (post-filing)
assignment of the mortgage is a legal nullity. U.S. Bank National Association v. Kosak et
al., 2007 NY Slip Op 51680(U)(N.Y. Sup.Ct. 9/4/2007), citing Katz v. East-Ville Realty
Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998] and Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d
In Bethley, the Court held that Plaintiff IndyMac lacked standing to foreclose on the
mortgage and note as it did not own the mortgage and note on the day that the Complaint
was filed. IndyMac, as Plaintiff has done here, attempted to assign the mortgage and note
two days after filing the foreclosure action. In the instant case, Plaintiff’s own
submissions demonstrate that Plaintiff did not own the note and mortgage on December
24, 2007 (the day that the Complaint was filed), having only [purportedly] come into
such ownership, at the earliest, some three days thereafter, that being on December 27,
2007 by virtue of the very Assignment attached as Exhibit “B” to the Plaintiff’s moving
papers. As the subject Assignment was not even recorded by the Atlantic County Clerk
until almost a year later on November 5, 2008, Plaintiff arguably had no interest in the
and controlling decision of Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. v Sandra A. Ford , A-3627-06T1,
NJ Super (App. Div 2011), that was approved for publication on January 28, 2011, where
the Court addressed important points such as the necessity of proof of ownership of the
note for standing, proof of the holder of the note, proof of being a holder in due course,
whether the original lender indorsed the instrument, and the dates of the endorsement
and authentication of documents. Likewise, on the front page of the New Jersey Law
trying to go after delinquent mortgagors will now have to contend with a precedential
ruling that takes a strict line on proof of standing. The Appellate Division, in Wells
Fargo Bank N.A. v. Ford, A-3627-06, held on Jan. 28 that a bank could not go ahead with
the mortgage note from the original lender. Wells Fargo claimed it obtained the mortgage
and accompanying $403,750 promissory note by assignment from original lender Argent
Mortgage Co. The assignment had not been recorded, but Wells Fargo obtained summary
judgment below based on a certification from someone who claimed knowledge of the
amounts owed for principal, interest and other charges but who did not indicate the
source of that knowledge. The appeals court reversed, finding authentication lacking."
In our case, U.S. Bank of America has not even met the threshold of any of these
requirements and that is precisely the reason why this case should be dismissed.
In the case at hand, Plaintiff allegedly was assigned the mortgage and note on May 20,
2010. A mere four days later , the complaint was filed. It seems incredulous that a lender
is so quick to file a foreclosure action a mere four days after taking possession of the
note. When did Plaintiff actually took possession of the note? Did they take possession
of the note? The assignment was not even recorded at the time of the filing of the
complaint. It was first recorded on June 18, 2010 as noted in the record. Moreover,
Plaintiff is in violation of subsection g of Title 131 of the Truth and Lending Act as the
Defendants were never notified of the assignment transfer. The Court must determine
whether the note and mortgage were properly assigned as it is obvious from the record
that Plaintiff's attorney prepared the assignment of the mortgage for the lawsuit as it was
created within thirty days of the filing of the lawsuit . Is anything wrong with that? It is
an issue with the Legal Services of New Jersey (LSNJ) who pointed it out in their brief to
the Supreme Court of New Jersey, where they said the following, "typically at the time
the lender makes a decision to foreclose it is not the record mortgagee. To correct the
defect, the attorney for the foreclosing mortgagee or servicer of the loan will create an
Assignment of Mortgage for the purposes of litigation which is in turn signed by a robo-
signer. Documents recorded with a public official are self executing and have special
evidential status and therefore are especially pernicious." As noted above, this appears to
be the same situation at the case at bar. The assignment was created for the lawsuit. The
signer of the assignment, Judith T. Romano is listed as Assistant Secretary and Vice
President. It appears that she is wearing two hats as a cursory search of her name reveals
that she is employed for the same law firm that filed the lawsuit. This point was also
addressed by LSNJ where they noted, " The signers do not identify themselves by their
their actual employer. Instead they hold themselves out as vice presidents…" The brief in
it's entirety can be located on the New Jersey Courts website which is a matter of the
public record.
As such, Plaintiff may have lacked legal standing to institute this mortgage foreclosure
action ab initio. This issue of material fact warrants not only the denial of Plaintiff’s
Motion to strike Defendant's answer, but it may even warrant a dismissal of the action.
In cases where a suit is in an early state and not fully developed, the standard by which a
court ought to review a judgment terminating it now is from the standpoint of whether
there is any basis upon which the plaintiff should be entitled to proceed
further. Velantzas, supra at 193, citing Bilotti v. Accurate Forming Corp., 39 N.J. 184,
193, 188 A.2d 24 (1963). As the Plaintiff herein may not have had the legal standing to
Plaintiff also attempts to support its Motion with the Certification of Mr. Blake, Esq.,
who is counsel for the Plaintiff and who is not an officer or director of the Plaintiff. The
subject Certification is not made on personal knowledge. As the Certification is not based
knowledge. Personal knowledge excludes matters based on information and belief. See.,
e.g., Wang v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 N.J. 2, 16 (1991); Lamb v. Global Landfill
Reclaiming, 111 N.J. 134, 153 (1988). The Blake Certification, which is made by the
attorney and not an officer of plaintiff who would have personal knowledge, is thus
The Blake Certification also makes reference to and attaches the Assignment (Exhibit
Plaintiff, is the very document demonstrating that Plaintiff may have had no legal interest
or ownership in either the note or mortgage at the time that the Complaint was filed, and
raises genuine issues of material fact as to when (if ever) Plaintiff came into any
ownership rights of either the Note or the Mortgage. The notary on the assignment is
the issue regarding notaries as noted by the Legal Services of New Jersey in their brief to
the Court. In addition, the pooling agreement that is attached as Plaintiff's exhibit F only
adds more questions to the equation such as where is the original note? who is the
trustee? when was the mortgage actually assigned?, and was the mortgage/note properly
transferred and assigned? Plaintiff’s Motion to strike Defendant's motion must be denied.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has, by its very submissions, demonstrated that there are genuine issues of
material fact as to when, if ever, Plaintiff came into any ownership interest in either the
material fact that Plaintiff did not have any legal interest in either the note or the
mortgage at the time it filed this foreclosure action, and has thus demonstrated that it was
without leg0al standing to institute this action. The motion striking Defendant's answer is
wholly inappropriate.
The motion to strike Defendant's answer is also improper at this time given that discovery
Plaintiff’s Motion to strike Defendants answer must be denied and Plaintiff's complaint
Respectfully submitted,
Earl David