MORTGAGE

FORECLOSURE UPDATE
2011 Seminar Material

Honorable Margaret Mary McVeigh, P.J.Ch.

(Paterson)

Rosemarie Diamond, Esq.

Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg
(Mt. Laurel; Philadelphia, PA)

Bruce Levitt, Esq.

Levitt & Slafkes, P.C.
(South Orange)

Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq.

Administrative Office of the Courts
(Trenton)

New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education

W198.11
 THE NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education was created in 1961 to help lawyers and judges
increase their general professional competence, keep abreast of developments in the law, and become more
proficient in selected areas of practice. Since 1961, ICLE has served the educational needs of the New Jersey
bench and bar and continually strives to respond to their many and varied concerns.

A non-profit, completely self-supporting organization, ICLE is the joint venture of the New Jersey State Bar
Association, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey, and Seton Hall University. Representing a merger
of the practicing bar and the academic community, the Institute is governed by an autonomous Board of
Trustees, which includes representatives of the State Bar Association, deans of the law schools and officers of
the participating universities.

The Institute presents more than 250 seminars each year throughout the State, offers audio and video
cassettes of seminars, markets software programs especially designed for the practicing attorney, and
publishes comprehensive practice manuals and lecture handbooks. Its programs and publications must be
financially self-supporting since ICLE is not subsidized in any way. The professional staff of attorneys and
other professionals, aided by a dedicated support staff, is headquartered at the New Jersey Law Center in
New Brunswick, along with the State Bar Association, the State Bar Foundation, and IOLTA.

The ingredients which contribute most to the stature of the Institute are the talent, time and effort expended by
the very best of New Jersey attorneys, representing every field of specialization and every type of practice.
The voluntary participation of practicing lawyers and judges as ICLE lecturers, authors, and advisors is
appreciated and encouraged, for without their assistance, and the continued support of those we serve, high
quality continuing legal education would not be possible.

The material contained in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended as a
substitute for the professional services an attorney would normally provide to a client, including up to the
minute legal research

Copyright © 2011 by the

NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION
All Rights Reserved
 About the Panelists…

Rosemarie Diamond is a Member of Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP with offices in
Mount Laurel, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, PA. Her practice areas include creditors’
rights, foreclosures, bankruptcy law, real estate law and collections.

Ms. Diamond is admitted to practice in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York.

She received her B.S. from Mary Washington College and her J.D. from Temple
University School of Law.

Bruce Levitt is a Founding Partner of Levitt & Slafkes, P.C. in South Orange, New
Jersey, a firm which practices almost exclusively in bankruptcy, commercial litigation and
residential real estate transactions. He handles both consumer and commercial
bankruptcy matters.

Admitted to practice in New Jersey, Mr. Levitt served for twelve years as a panel
bankruptcy trustee for the Office of the United States Trustee, where he administered
chapter 7 and 11 cases. He also served for six years on the Lawyers’ Advisory
Committee of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, where
he helped draft rules for bankruptcy law in the New Jersey Bankruptcy Courts. Mr. Levitt
serves on the Supreme Court of New Jersey District V-B Fee Arbitration Committee and
is a member of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. A Master
in the Bankruptcy American Inn of Court, he frequently lectures on bankruptcy topics and
his articles have appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal.

Mr. Levitt received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Fairleigh Dickinson University and
his J.D. from Emory University School of Law, where he served on the Board of Editors
of the Emory Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to a three-judge panel of the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Honorable Margaret Mary McVeigh, P.J.Ch. is Presiding Judge of the Chancery

Division, General Equity Part, Passaic County vicinage, and sits in Paterson, New
Jersey. Her responsibilities include the General Equity Part and Probate.

A Superior Court Judge for 18 years, Judge McVeigh has served in Special Civil Part,
the Family Division and the Civil Division. She is Chair of the Probate Part Judges
Committee, Chair of the Special Committee to Study Guardianship Monitoring and a
member of the Judiciary Surrogates Liaison Committee. Judge McVeigh is a founding
member of the Robert Clifford American Inns of Court and serves on its Board of
Directors. She was an Adjunct Professor at Montclair State University.

Judge McVeigh is a graduate of Mary Washington College and Seton Hall Law School.

Kevin M. Wolfe is an Assistant Director at the Administrative Office of the Courts in

Trenton, New Jersey.
Mr. Wolfe received his B.S.M.E. from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and his
J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law.
  1

FORECLOSURE CASE SUMMARIES    (April 2011) 

              Honorable Margaret M. McVeigh, P.J.Ch. 
              Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq. 
              Rosemarie Diamond, Esq. 
              Bruce Levitt, Esq. 
     
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee v. Geeta P. Kollory, Unpublished Appellate 
Division Opinion; DOCKET No. A‐1199508T2‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2010 

The  appellate  court  upheld  the  lower  court’s  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff, 
holding  the  lower  court  created  a  sufficient  record  of  an  undisputed  default  in  forbearance 
payments, leaving no doubt that the defendant was in default of the terms of the forbearance 
agreement.  Defendant had argued there was evidence that the payments were current and the 
foreclosure was improper. The record includes a court transcript of oral argument during which 
the court reviewed the payment history in detail to confirm the existence of the default. 

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. v. Doris Odoemene, et. al., Unpublished Appellate Division 
Opinion; DOCKET NO. A‐4438‐08T2‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 28, 2010 

The appellate court upheld the lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate summary 
judgment.  Defendant claimed the plaintiff lacked standing because the assignment of mortgage 
from MERS into the plaintiff was not recorded until after the foreclosure complaint was filed.  
The  lower  court  rejected  this  argument  because  the  plaintiff  clearly  illustrated  that  it  was  the 
lender at origination and held the note at the time for foreclosure complaint was filed.  MERS 
had  functioned  as  its  nominee  on  the  original  mortgage.    Moreover,  MERS  assigned  the 
mortgage into plaintiff prior to the entry of final judgment.  Thus, plaintiff was the correct party 
in interest at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. 

Emmanuel Odoemene v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Unpublished Appellate Division 
Opinion; DOCKET NO. A‐2659‐08T3‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 28, 2010 

The  appellate  court  upheld  the  lower  court’s  determination,  on  defendant’s  motion  for 
summary judgment, that no private cause of action exists under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; 
and,  that  even  viewing  the  facts  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  the  plaintiff,  there  was  no 
evidence that the defendant had acted willfully of negligently in erring on the plaintiff’s credit 
report.  Also, the error had been corrected. 

U.S.  Bank,  National  Association  as  Trustee  for  CSMC  Mortgage‐Backed  Pass‐Through 
Certificates,  Series  2006‐4  v.  Verna  Thomas,  et.  al.,  Unpublished  Appellate  Division  Opinion; 
DOCKET NO. A‐3640‐08T2; DECIDED MARCH 23, 2010 
  2

The  Appellate  Division  upheld  the  lower  court’s  rejection  of  the  defendants’  claim  that  they 
were misled by the mortgage broker about the applicable interest rate for the loan.  The court 
found  that  the  interest  rate  was  clearly  listed  in  the  TILA  disclosure  statement  and  the  note 
itself;  and,  no  evidence  was  presented  to  contradict  the  closing  documents.  Moreover,  the 
defendants made payments for two years without raising the issue of an erroneous interest rate.  
The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the property cannot be foreclosed because 
the  husband  signed  only  the  mortgage  and  not  the  promissory  note.    To  the  contrary,  the 
husband’s signature secures the property as collateral for the loan. 

Ronald  Patetta  v.  Wells  Fargo  Bank,  N.A.;  Unpublished  Federal  District  Court  Opinion,  2010 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47233, DECIDED‐‐‐MAY 12, 2010 

The district court applies the Rooker‐Feldman Doctrine in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.  
Acknowledging  that  many  of  the  plaintiff’s  allegations  could  have  served  as  defenses  in  the 
foreclosure action, attempts to now rescind the mortgage transaction in the present matter are 
barred because the claims are inextricably intertwined with the foreclosure judgment.  Plaintiffs 
had  alleged  that  they  did  not  receive  a  loan  they  originally  bargained  for,  despite  being 
represented  by  counsel  at  closing,  and  that  Argent,  as  lender  and  Dana  Capital,  as  mortgage 
broker,  failed  to  make  disclosures  under  the  TILA,  15  U.S.C.  Section  1601  and  HOEPA,  15 
U.S.C. Section 1639. 

Avelo  Mortgage,  LLC  v.  Rodney  Jeffery,  Unpublished  Appellate  Division  Opinion, DOCKET 
NO. A‐0765‐08T1, DECIDED‐ JULY 15, 2010 

The  appellate  court  reversed  the  lower  court’s  voiding  of  the  plaintiff’s  mortgage,  and 
remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine the appropriate terms of a modified 
mortgage that will restore the parties to their appropriate status.  Defendants had rescinded the 
plaintiff’s mortgage, but failed to return the proceeds.  The court acknowledged that rescission 
is a defense to foreclosure; however, the consumer must return the proceeds of the loan.  If the 
consume cannot do so, the court can judicially modify the mortgage and allow its enforcement. 

One  West  Bank,  FSB  v.  Maria  Capo,  et.  al  and  Marva  Coleman  v.  Maria  Capo,  et.  al., 
Unpublished Trial Court Opinion, Docket No: F ‐5952‐09, Bergen County; DECIDED‐‐JULY 19, 
2010 

This  case  involves  a  mortgage  rescue  scan.    Marva  Coleman,  the  former  owner,  was  able  to 
prove  unequivocally  that  she  was  the  victim  of  fraud  by  Maria  Capo  and  other  parties.    The 
court also acknowledged that the plaintiff was an innocent victim of the fraud but rejected the 
assertion that the plaintiff was entitled to holder in due course status.  The court declared that 
the  plaintiff’s  mortgage,  which  was  obtained  through  fraud,  was  void  ab  initio.    Instead,  the 
  3

court  granted  the  plaintiff  an  equitable  mortgage  on  the  property,  in  the  name  of  the  Marva 
Coleman. The court fashioned the principal balance and interest rate for the equitable mortgage.  

HSBC  Bank,  USA,  National  Association  for  the  benefit  of  ACE  Securities  Corp.  Home  Equity 
Loan Trust, Series 2006‐NC2  v. Lamiaa Gouda. et. al., Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion, 
DOCKET NO. A‐1983‐09T2; DECIDED‐‐DECEMBER 17, 2010 

The  appellate  court  affirmed  the  lower  court’s  grant  of  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the 
plaintiff, rejecting defendants’ arguments that (1) the note is non‐negotiable because it imposes 
an  obligation  on  defendants,  in  addition  to  payment,  to  notify  lender  of  pre‐payment,  in 
violation  of  N.J.S.A.  12A:3‐104(a);  (2)  the  plaintiff  was  not  a  holder  in  due  course  because  it 
knew or should have known about irregularities in the closing documents.  The court finds no 
legal  authority  in  defendants’  argument  that  the  note  is  not  a  negotiable  instrument;  and,  the 
circumstances  of  the  closing  do  not  imply  a  lack  of  good  faith  by  the  plaintiff  sufficient  to 
overcome holder in due course status. 

In  the  Matter  of  Kemp/John  Kemp  v.  Countrywide  Home  Loans,  Case  No,  08‐18700‐JHW; 
Adversary Number 08‐2448, (Bankruptcy Ct. D. N.J.) DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Debtor filed an adversary action in bankruptcy court, challenging creditorʹs ability to enforce its 
obligation because (1) the promissory note executed by the debtor was not properly endorsed to 
the  creditor;  and  (2)  the  creditor  was  not  in  possession  of  the  note.    The  court  expunged  the 
creditor’s secured claim.  The court cited the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (“NJUCC”) 
to  define  both  what  constitutes  a  negotiable  instrument  and  what  parties  may  exercise  rights 
under  the  negotiable  instrument.    The  promissory  note  identified  Countrywide  Home  Loans, 
Inc.  as  the  original  lender.    The  note  attached  an  unsigned  allonge  and  was  not  endorsed  to 
Bank of New York.  The loan was sold into a pool of loans with Bank of New York as Trustee 
and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as the master servicer. The pooling and servicing 
agreement  contained  terms  for  endorsement  of  a  note  entering  the  pool.    The  mortgage  was 
assigned  to  Bank  of  New  York  as  Trustee.    The  court  determined  that  the  note,  a  negotiable 
instrument  governed  the  NJ  UCC,  was  not  properly  endorsed,  nor  in  the  physical  custody  of 
the Bank of New York at the time the proof of claim was filed. Consequently, the creditor had 
no basis on which to enforce the note.  

Bank  of  New  York,  as  Trustee  for  Home  Mortgage  Investment  Trust  2004‐4  Mortgage  Backed 
Notes,  Series  2004‐4  v.  Michael  J.  Raftogianis,  418  N.J.  Super.  323  (Ch.  Div.  2010).,  DECIDED 
June 29, 2010 

The  court  dismissed  the  foreclosure  complaint  without  prejudice,  holding  that  the  plaintiff 
failed to prove it had physical possession of the note and was the holder as defined under the 
  4

New  Jersey  Uniform  Commercial  Code,  at  the  time  the  foreclosure  complaint  was  filed.    In 
refilling  the  complaint,  the  plaintiff  must  certify  the  facts  as  to  when  it  took  possession  of  the 
note  and  its  status  as  holder.    The  plaintiff  was  the  trustee  under  a  pooling  and  servicer 
agreement;  and,  the  pooling  and  servicing  agreement  contained  specific  instructions  for 
endorsement of the note.  The decision contains extensive commentary on the securitization of 
mortgages  and  the  requirements  for  establishing  a  party  as  holder  of  the  note.    The  court 
rejected the argument that the presence of MERS as a nominee caused a separation of the note 
and mortgage, rendering the mortgage unenforceable.  

U.S.  Bank  National  Association  v.  Mark  Williams,  Unpublished  Appellate  Division  Opinion, 
A‐6185‐08T2, LEXIS 175, DECIDED August 25, 2010 

The  trial  court  denied  defendant’s  motion  to  stay  redemption.    Defendant  alleged  he  was 
denied  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  participate  in  New  Jerseyʹs  residential  mortgage 
Foreclosure  Mediation  Program  (FMP)  because  he  was  unrepresented  and  not  assisted  by  a 
housing  counselor.    The  appellate  court  ruled  that  Defendant  did  have  an  opportunity  to 
participate  in  mediation,  including  assistance  of  housing  counselor  as  outlined  by  the  FMP.  
Defendant did not demonstrate the financial ability to qualify for a mortgage modification and 
was not approved.  The court noted that an agreement resulting in a loan modification is not a 
requirement of the FMP if the borrower is not qualified.  Participating in mediation translates 
into a meaningful opportunity. 

U.S.  Bank  Natʹl  Assʹn  v.  Berg,  Unpublished  Appellate  Division  Opinion.,  A‐4696‐08T2,  LEXIS 
2413, DECIDED October 5, 2010  

Defendant filed a motion to vacate default, Final Judgment, Sheriffʹs Sale, to void deed and stay 
eviction  approximately  five  months  after  the  Sheriffʹs  Sale.  Defendant  argued  that  Plaintiff 
lacked standing to foreclose because it did not possess the note at the time the complaint was 
filed.  The lower court held that Plaintiff need only gain possession of the note before entry of 
Final Judgment and denied the motion.  The Appellate Division ruled that: (1) the Plaintiff had 
possession  of  the  note  when  the  complaint  was  filed;  (2)  the  Defendant  acknowledged  the 
validity of the note/mortgage at various times; (3) Defendant did not move to vacate judgment 
sale within a reasonable time.  

Bank  of  America,  NA,  as  successor  by  merger  to  LaSalle  Bank,  NA  as  Trustee  for  WaMu 
Mortgage  Pass‐Through  Certificate  Series  2006  ‐AR11  Trust  v.  Janett  Alvarado,  Unpublished 
Trial Court Opinion, Docket: F‐47941‐08, DECIDED January 7, 2011 
 

The  court  granted  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  rejecting  the  defendant’s 
argument that the plaintiff cannot enforce the note because the note was lost prior to its transfer 
  5

to  plaintiff.    The  court  found  that  common  law  principles  of  unjust  enrichment  preclude  the 
borrower  from  receiving  the  windfall  that  would  be  created  by  a  failure  to  deem  the  note 
enforceable.    The  original  note  was  certified  as  lost  by  the  original  lender.  Also,  the  pass‐
through trust was intended to include acquisition of Defendantʹs note; and, Bank of America, as 
successor  has  the  right  to  enforce  the  obligation  represented  by  the  Lost  Note.    Also,  Bank  of 
America is the assignee of the rights possessed by Washington Mutual, and the common law of 
assignments is broad enough to encompass the circumstances set forth in this case. 

Allen v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 629 F.3d. 364 (2011) DECIDED January 12, 2011 

Plaintiff  filed  a  class  action  lawsuit  against  multiple  parties  alleging  violation  of  15  U.S.C. 
§1692f(1)  because  the  servicer’s  attorney  sent  the  borrower’s  attorney  a  payoff  letter  which 
contained allegedly excessive fees in connection with the foreclosure of her home. The district 
court  dismissed  the  complaint  holding  that  communication  from  a  debt  collector  to  a 
consumerʹs  attorney  should  be  analyzed  under  the  standard  of  a  competent  attorney,  and 
because  a  competent  attorney  would  have  recognized  the  charges  as  being  excessive,  the 
complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Third Circuit reversed the decision finding that 
§1692f  (1)  was  a  strict  liability  statute  which  did  not  depend  upon  the nature  of  the  recipient, 
and  that  the  letter  to  the  consumerʹs  attorney  constituted  an  indirect  communication  with  the 
consumer herself. 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee v. Wilson, Unpublished Appellate Division 
Opinion Docket Number A‐1384‐09T1, Decided January 19, 2011 

Appellate  Division  reversed  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  foreclosing  plaintiff.  The 
Appellate Division found the affidavits submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary 
judgment failed to establish the criteria for the admission of business records as exceptions to 
the  hearsay  rule;  the  affidavits  failed  to  attach  the  computer  printouts  in  support  of  the 
affidavit;  and,  the  party  executing  the  affidavit  was  employed  by  a  company  other  than  the 
servicer, but signed under corporate authority, as an officer of the plaintiff. 

U.S.  Bank  National  Association,  as  Trustee  for  JP  Morgan  Acquisition  Corp.  2006‐FRE2,  Asset 
Backed  Pass‐Through  Certificates,  Series  2006‐FRE2  v.  Arthur  Spencer,  et.al,  Docket  No.  BER‐
10591‐10, Unpublished Trial Court Opinion, DECIDED March 22, 2011 

The  court  dismissed  plaintiff’s  foreclosure  complaint  on  defendant’s  motion  for  summary 
judgment  because  the  plaintiff  failed  to  prove  it  had  physical  possession  of  the  note  and 
standing  to  pursue  the  foreclosure  under  the  requirements  of  the  New  Jersey  Uniform 
Commercial Code; failed to present a prima facie case with evidence from a competent witness; 
and,  the  Defendant  raised  defenses  which  would  have  required  further  exploration.    The 
  6

property was destroyed by fire and the proper application of insurance proceeds was disputed 
between the parties, although the default of the mortgage was not in dispute.  

Wells  Fargo  Bank,  N.A.,  as  Trustee  v.  Sandra  A.  Ford,  ___  N.J.  Super  ___  (App.  Div.  2011) 
Docket No: A‐3627‐06T1, Approved for Publication; DECIDED January 28, 2011 

The  Appellate  Division  reversed  the  trial  court’s  grant  of  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the 
plaintiff. The defendants challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action and 
whether  the  plaintiff  was  the  holder,  as  well  as  the  holder  in  due  course.    The  Appellate 
Division found that the documents relied on in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were 
not  properly  authenticated  and  did  not  support  the  grant  of  summary  judgment.    If  properly 
authenticated,  the  documents  presented  may  support  summary  judgment.    Once  the  plaintiff 
presents adequate evidence that it is the holder, the question of whether it is the holder in due 
course, and therefore not subject to certain defenses pertaining to origination, can be addressed.  

U.S.  Bank  v.  Gleason,  Unpublished  Trial  Court  Opinion,  Docket  No:  F  ‐5319‐08,  Passaic 
County; DECIDED March 15, 2011 

The  trial  court  dismissed  the  foreclosure  because  the  plaintiff  failed  to  prove  standing,  as 
defined in the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code, at trial.  The plaintiff did not present a 
witness  qualified  to  testify  as  to  whether  the  loan  was  properly  secured  into  the  trust,  in 
accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, by delivery of possession of 
the  note.    Nor  could  the  witness  explain  why  documents,  specifically  a  series  of  executed 
assignments, contradicted the documents previously presented to the Court. The contradictory 
assignments  raised  questions  about  the  chain  of  title.    Given  the  inadequacy  of  the  evidence, 
despite the existence of an undisputed default, the complaint was dismissed.   

 
The Bank of New York Mellon‐F/K/A The Bank of New York Trustee Under The Pooling and 
Servicing  Agreement  Series  2004‐24  CB  v.  George  C.  Elghossain,  __  N.J.  Super  ___  (Ch.  Div. 
2010)  Docket  No:  F‐13402‐10,  Decided  December  23,  2010;  Approved  for  Publication  April  4, 
2011 (J. Berman)‐‐DECIDED  

The Court dismissed the foreclosure complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the 
Fair  Foreclosure  Act’s  requirements  pertaining  to  the  pre‐foreclosure  notice  of  intention  to 
foreclose.    The  Court  viewed  the  statute  as  requiring  strict  compliance  with  its  provisions.  
Specifically, court found that the notice sent by the plaintiff’s servicer did not comply with the 
statute  because  it  listed  only  the  servicer  and  the  servicer’s  address,  omitting  the  name  of  the 
lender and the lender’s address.  The court pondered the question of whether the lender must 
  7

also be the party to mail the notice, but concluded that the issue of who may mail the notice was 
not before the court.   

US  Bank  NA,  as  Trustee  v.  Guillaume,  Unpublished  Appellate  Division  Opinion,  A‐
0376‐10T3 DECIDED April 20, 2011  

The  Appellate  Division  upheld  the  trial  courtʹs  denial  of  application  to  vacate  default 
judgment.   The  defendants  alleged  that  they  had  a  meritorious  defense  because  the 
plaintiff  violated  the  Fair  Foreclosure  Act,  specifically;  the  NOI  listed  the  servicerʹs 
address and not the lenderʹs address.  The Appellate Division setout N.J.S.A. 2A:50‐56c, 
to  wit,  the  FFA  notice  (NOI)  requires  “[t]he  name  and  address  of  the  lender  and  the 
telephone number of a representative . . . ”,  but stated, ʺ[t]he NOI satisfied the purpose 
of  the  FFA  because  ASC  (the  servicer)  is  the  appropriate  party  for  the  Guillaumes  to 
contact to cure their default.”  

 
Thank you for logging in – the webinar will begin 
s o ty
shortly.
  McVeigh  Presiding Judge of the Chancery 
•The Honorable Margaret M. McVeigh, Presiding Judge of the Chancery 
•The Honorable Margaret M
Court for the County of Passaic

Kevin M. Wolfe, Esquire, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the 
•Kevin M. Wolfe, Esquire, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the 
Courts for the Civil Practice Division

q
•Rosemarie Diamond, Esquire, Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg
g

•Bruce Levitt, Esquire, Levitt & Slafkes, P.C.
1. All Attendee phone lines are muted.
1 muted
2. Questions may be submitted
„ Via Chat on the right hand side of your screen.
„ Questions will be answered periodically during the
presentation

Note: Attendees with dial up connections will see a slower response.

 3. See your
3
messages here

1. Type your
question here. 2. Send
NJICLE PRESENTS:
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
UPDATE
A NJICLE Webinar
Topics
p to be Covered
… Mortgage Mediation Program
… Appointment of Special Master: Order to Show
Cause, Administrative Order and Amendment to
Court Rules of 12/20/10
… Seeking Stays of Sheriff
Sheriff’ss Sales
… The New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness Act
… Office of Foreclosure Updates
… Case Law Updates (available on request)
Mortgage
g g Mediation
Overview and Updates
p
- Where to get the forms?

- Recommendations for Preparation

Perspectives on the Program

- Perspective of the Judiciary

- Perspective of the Administrative Office

- Perspective of Lender’s Counsel

- Perspective of Borrower’s Counsel
Court’s Response to Servicer
D
Documentation
t ti IIssues
On December 20,, 2010,, the following g actions were taken:
The Supreme Court adopted emergency foreclosure rules
to Court Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2, requiring
attorneys to fil
file affidavits
ffid i off due
d diligence;
dili
Mary C. Jacobson, P. J. Ch., for Mercer County, issued an
Order to Show Cause directed to six lenderlender-servicers
servicers in
response to servicer documentation issues widely
reported in the media.
Glenn A. Grant, Acting Administrative Director of the
Courts, issued an Administrative Order directed to
twenty-four
twenty four other lender
lender-plaintiffs.
plaintiffs.
On March
O M h 29,29 2011,
2011 Judge
J d Jacobson
J b entered
d an order
d
approving the Recommended Stipulation submitted
by the Court
Court’ss appointed counsel, Edward Dauber,
Esquire. The order includes appointment of a Special
Master.

From February 1, 2011 to February 28, 2011, a

public comment period was opened with respect to
the emergent rule amendment. The Court’s response
is anticipated in early May of 2011.
2011
` Please record this code for your MCLE forms:
page@59th
Seeking
g Stays
y of Sheriff’s Sales
Forms Available on Judicial Website and at local
courthouse for use by counsel and pro se
defendants
Recommendations for seeking a stay:
Has the defendant exhausted his statutory
-Has
adjournments?
- What is the basis for the request for the stay?
The New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness Act
( NJFFA )
(“NJFFA”)
The NJFFA was enacted on January 17, 2010,
amending the Mortgage Stabilization and Relief
Act ppassed in 2009.
Relevant Provisions:
((1)) Notices
N to M
Municipalities
p
(2) Maintenance of Abandoned Properties
(3) Tenants
Tenants’ Rights under Anti-Eviction
Anti Eviction Act
(4) Notice of Right to opt in to Stay of Foreclosure
Updates
p from the Office of Foreclosure

- Affidavit/ Certification of Due Diligence

- Staffing
- Expedited (Substantial) Commercial Mortgage
Foreclosure
JEFIS - Foreclosure
JEFIS – Foreclosure
- Electronic filing and electronic case jackets

- Public Access

- Foreclosure Auto Storage

Superior Court Clerk Docket (ACMS)

- Data Entry Responsibilities
 The webinar has ended.

 The program handbook, relevant CLE forms and 
additional materials for this program can be 
accessed at: njicle.com/webinar

 Please hang up your telephone now.