U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS. ADAM LIEBERMAN (F-021976-16, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1640-17T1
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ADAM LIEBERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
GENESE LIEBERMAN and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
______________________________
Submitted November 14, 2018 – Decided February 20, 2019
Before Judges Rothstadt and Natali.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. F-
021976-16.
Adam Lieberman, appellant pro se.
Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PC, attorneys for
respondent (Brian J. Yoder, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential mortgage foreclosure matter, defendant Adam
Lieberman appeals from the final judgment of foreclosure entered on October
31, 2017 after Judge Francis Hodgson, Jr. earlier granted summary judgment to
plaintiff, U.S. Bank National Association, and struck defendant's answer.
Defendant also challenges the judge's May 26, 2017 summary judgment order
and the denial of his cross-motion for dismissal, as well as the judge's October
27, 2017 order fixing the amount due to plaintiff.
In his opposition to plaintiff's summary judgment motion, defendant
asserted challenges to plaintiff's standing and further claimed plaintiff violated
the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:50-53 to 2A:50-68. On
May 31, 2017, Judge Hodgson placed on the record his detailed findings of fact
and conclusions of law addressing each of defendant's contentions. When he
issued his later order fixing the amount due, Judge Hodgson also issued a written
decision explaining his findings.
On appeal, defendant contends that Judge Hodgson abused his discretion
by (a) concluding plaintiff's proofs were "sufficient to grant [s]ummary
[j]udgment"; (b) finding that plaintiff had standing to file the complaint; (c)
A-1640-17T1
2
concluding plaintiff complied with the FFA; and (d) "concluding plaintiff
demonstrated with evidence the amount due is accurate."
We review a court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same standard as the trial court. Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017).
Summary judgment must be granted if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the
moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." Templo
Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189,
199 (2016) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).
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).
We are satisfied that Judge Hodgson'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 therefore affirm the final
judgment of foreclosure and each of the orders under review substantially for
the reasons expressed by the judge in his thorough oral and written decisions.
Affirmed.
A-1640-17T1
3