SANTANDER BANK, N.A. VS. STEPHEN G. DZINCIELEWSKI (F-008427-17, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-2178-17T3
    SANTANDER BANK, N.A.,
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    STEPHEN G. DZINCIELEWSKI,
    STEPHEN G. DZINCIELEWSKI,
    as executor of THE ESTATE OF
    AUDREY J. DZINCIELEWSKI,
    GALE SAVAGE, his wife, NANCY
    NOESGES, MICHAEL NOESGES,
    her husband, UNITED STATES OF
    AMERICA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY
    and ASCENSIONPOINT RECOVERY
    SERVICES, LLC,
    Defendants,
    and
    FRANK S. DZINCIELEWSKI,
    as executor of THE ESTATE OF
    AUDREY J. DZINCIELEWSKI
    and FRANK S. DZINCIELEWSKI,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________
    Submitted March 5, 2019 – Decided July 24, 2019
    Before Judges Yannotti and Rothstadt.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. F-
    008427-17.
    Frank Dzincielewski, appellant pro se.
    Stern Lavinthal & Frankenberg, LLC, attorneys for
    respondent (Mark S. Winter, of counsel and on the
    brief).
    PER CURIAM
    In this foreclosure action, defendant Frank S. Dzincielewski is one of the
    executors and heirs to his late mother, Audrey J. Dzincielewski's estate. Audrey
    and Stephen Dzincielewski,1 another son, executor and heir of the estate, were
    the obligors under a note, and Audrey was the mortgagor under a mortgage,
    which were given to secure loans made under the subject Home Equity Line of
    Credit (HELOC) extended by plaintiff Santander Bank, N.A. Defendant appeals
    from the Chancery Division's July 21, 2017 order granting plaintiff summary
    judgment, its November 3, 2017 order rejecting defendant's challenge to the
    amount due to plaintiff, and its November 30, 2017 final judgment of
    1
    We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid any confusion caused by
    their common surname.
    A-2178-17T3
    2
    foreclosure.   On appeal, defendant contends the motion judge abused his
    discretion by granting summary judgment and "disregarding" his "offset to . . .
    [the] amount due." We disagree and affirm as we conclude there is no merit to
    defendant's arguments.
    The material facts viewed in the light most favorable to defendant are
    generally undisputed. See Ben Elazar v. Macrietta Cleaners, Inc., 
    230 N.J. 123
    ,
    135 (2017). They are summarized as follows. Until her death in July 2014,
    Audrey owned a residential property in Toms River. She took title in 2007 and
    in 2009, she and Stephen executed a note and she delivered a mortgage in
    connection with their securing a $130,000 HELOC from Sovereign Bank, N.A.
    (Sovereign). The mortgage securing the line was recorded on December 4,
    2009. Sovereign was later renamed as plaintiff, Santander Bank, N.A.
    After Audrey died, payments toward the amount owed under the HELOC
    ceased and by February 8, 2016, the loan was in default. Plaintiff issued a notice
    of default addressed to Audrey's estate on August 31, 2016 and when the loan
    was not reinstated, it filed this action on April 4, 2017.
    In its complaint, plaintiff identified defendant as an heir and executor of
    Audrey's estate. Defendant filed a contesting answer. Among the defenses he
    asserted in his answer was that New Jersey's Home Ownership Security Act
    A-2178-17T3
    3
    (HOSA), N.J.S.A. 46:10B-22 to -68, barred plaintiff's claims because plaintiff
    charged "[d]efendant late fees more than [five percent] of the Principal and
    Interest."
    After discovery was completed, plaintiff filed its motion for summary
    judgment.    Defendant did not oppose the motion.          Plaintiff's motion was
    supported by the certification of one of its officers who certified to the history
    of the loan, plaintiff's possession of the note and mortgage, and the renaming of
    Sovereign to plaintiff's name.
    On July 20, 2017, the Chancery judge granted plaintiff's motion and
    converted defendant's pleading to a non-contesting answer, placing his reasons
    for doing so on the record that day. Based on the proofs submitted on summary
    judgment, the judge found the history of the loan to be as stated above and
    concluded that plaintiff "established its prima facie right to foreclosure; that is,
    it established execution, delivery, nonpayment of the [loan], and standing." On
    July 21, 2017, the judge entered an order memorializing his decision.
    In October 2017, plaintiff moved for final judgment supported by a
    certification from one of its officers. Defendant responded by filing a motion to
    fix the amount due supported by his certification. In his certification, he stated
    that he resided at the subject premises and plaintiff charged him late fees after
    A-2178-17T3
    4
    Audrey's death in excess of those permitted by HOSA. Therefore, according to
    defendant, the amount due under the note was not the $138,574.64 demanded by
    plaintiff that included $1,356.29 in late charges, but was actually $30,787.99
    after deducting the "statutory damages" provided for under HOSA.
    The Chancery judge granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's. In
    his written statement of reasons, the judge recounted the history of the loan and
    observed that in defendant's objection to the amount sought by plaintiff, he
    asserted that the "late charges should be $96.16" and did so "without providing
    the method of his calculation . . . ." The judge concluded that defendant failed
    to comply with Rule 4:64-1(d)(3) (requiring that an objection state "with
    specificity the basis of the dispute"), because he "made only general assertions
    disputing the amount due and has not made an[y] specific challenge to
    [plaintiff's] calculations or contradicted [those] figures by providing alternate
    calculations . . . ." Turning to plaintiff's submission in support of the amount it
    claimed was due under the note, the judge was satisfied that plaintiff's
    calculations were sufficiently detailed and authenticated for him to accept as
    being correct, and they did not demonstrate any violation under HOSA.
    The judge entered an order memorializing his decision and another judge
    later entered the final judgment. This appeal followed.
    A-2178-17T3
    5
    On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence on summary judgment
    was insufficient to support the motion judge's finding that Sovereign was
    renamed as Santander Bank, N.A. or that plaintiff possessed the original note on
    the day it filed its complaint, which he describes as a "critical" issue because
    there was no assignment of mortgage. He also argues that the judge neither
    applied the correct standard on summary judgment nor issued sufficient findings
    of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 1:7-4.
    As to the issue of the correct amount due, defendant argues that an "offset"
    should have been applied because plaintiff's calculation of the late fees owed
    violated HOSA, which he contends limited the amount chargeable to five
    percent of the "payment past due" and cannot be "charged more than once with
    respect to a single late payment." Defendant cites to a federal bankruptcy court
    decision and argues that allowing plaintiff to include more than the five percent
    violated the Act.
    We review de novo orders granting summary judgment and apply the same
    standard that governed the trial court's ruling. Conley v. Guerrero, 
    228 N.J. 339
    ,
    346 (2017). Summary judgment will be granted if, viewing the evidence in the
    light most favorable to the non-moving party, "there is no genuine issue of
    material fact and 'the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter
    A-2178-17T3
    6
    of law.'" 
    Ibid. (quoting Templo Fuente
    De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
    Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A., 
    224 N.J. 189
    , 199 (2016)); R. 4:46-2(c). See also Kaur
    v. Assured Lending Corp., 
    405 N.J. Super. 468
    , 474 (App. Div. 2009).
    We have considered defendant's contentions in light of our de novo review
    of the record and applicable legal principles and conclude that they are without
    sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
    Suffice it to say, although not addressed by the Chancery judge, defendant
    cannot appear on behalf of Audrey's estate in this action without counsel, see R.
    1:21-1; see also Kasharian v. Wilentz, 
    93 N.J. Super. 479
    , 482-83 (App. Div.
    1967), as he holds no interest in the subject property directly and is neither a
    borrower under the note, a mortgagor under the mortgage, nor a borrower as
    defined in HOSA. See N.J.S.A. 46:10B-24 ("'[b]orrower' means any natural
    person obligated to repay the loan, including a co-borrower, cosigner, or
    guarantor"); N.J.S.A. 46:10B-27 (addressing a "borrower's" right to assert
    claims and defenses under HOSA).
    Regardless of defendant's lack of any right to pursue this appeal or the
    claims he raised before the Chancery judge, we also conclude that the judge's
    factual findings concerning all of defendant's contentions are fully supported by
    the record and, in light of those facts, his legal conclusions are unassailable. We
    A-2178-17T3
    7
    therefore affirm the final judgment of foreclosure and each of the orders under
    review substantially for the reasons expressed by the judge in his oral and
    written decisions.
    Affirmed.
    A-2178-17T3
    8
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-2178-17T3

Filed Date: 7/24/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2019