Gmat Legal Title Trust 2013-1, Etc. v. Carmelo A. Ortiz ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1886-22
GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST
2013-1, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL
TITLE TRUSTEE,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CARMELO A. ORTIZ,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
JESSICA M. PEREZ, a/k/a
JESSICA SANCHEZ, and
JESSICA ORTIZ,
Defendant.
____________________________
Submitted February 12, 2024 – Decided February 21, 2024
Before Judges Chase and Vinci.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Atlantic County, Docket No.
F-003185-18.
Carmelo A. Ortiz, appellant pro se.
Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners,
PLLC, attorneys for respondent (Christian T. Miller, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Carmelo A. Ortiz appeals from a January 6, 2023 Chancery
Division order denying his motion to vacate default judgment and from a
February 17, 2023 order denying his motion for reconsideration, claiming the
trial court did not provide adequate reasons for its decision as required under
Rule 1:7-4(a). We affirm.
We discern the following material facts from the record. This dispute
arises from defendant's default on a note in favor of American Sterling Bank for
$321,996 executed on April 15, 2008. The note was secured by a mortgage in
favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for
Prospect Mortgage, on defendant's residential property located at 509 North
Elberon Avenue in Atlantic City.
The mortgage was assigned multiple times, and each assignment was
recorded in the Atlantic County Clerk's Office. On February 15, 2014, the
mortgage was assigned to GMAT Legal Title Trust 2013-1, U.S. Bank National
A-1886-22
2
Association ("GMAT"), as legal title trustee. This final assignment was
properly recorded on February 15, 2014.
Defendant failed to make monthly payments starting in November 2016.
GMAT filed a foreclosure complaint in February 2018. In October 2018, a final
judgment of foreclosure was entered. The Atlantic County Sheriff then
scheduled a sheriff's sale of the property for January 2019.
Defendant filed an initial motion to vacate the default and default
judgment in November 2018. While that motion was pending, defendant filed
for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which temporarily stayed the foreclosure action. In
July 2020, the bankruptcy case was dismissed. On August 25, 2021, defendant
filed another Chapter 13 bankruptcy, again staying the foreclosure. The stay
was vacated in June 2022, allowing the foreclosure to proceed.
In November 2022, defendant filed a motion to vacate default pursuant to
Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f). The court set a January 6, 2023 hearing for oral argument
on that motion. Defendant failed to appear at the hearing, and the Court entered
an order denying the motion as a result.
Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the January 6, 2023 order pursuant
to Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f). On February 17, 2023, defendant failed to appear
again, and the court denied the motion. Before ruling, the court recounted the
A-1886-22
3
procedural history of the matter on the record and then made findings of fact
regarding the substantive motion to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure.
The court properly set forth the law under Rule 4:50-1, finding "a final judgment
could only be vacated upon a showing of excusable neglect and meritorious
defense." The court then thoroughly analyzed both factors and concluded they
were not present in this case. As such, the motions were denied.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court's initial dismissal failed to
rule on the merits. Further, on the second motion to vacate, the court did not
provide an accompanying written statement of reasons denying his motion as
required by Rule 1:7-4.
We review an order granting or denying vacatur of a final judgment for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502-03 (2008).
An abuse of discretion arises "when a decision is 'made without a rational
explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an
impermissible basis.'" U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467-68
(2012) (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)).
Indeed, "[t]he trial court's determination under [Rule 4:50-1] warrants
substantial deference," and the abuse of discretion must be "clear" to warrant
reversal. Ibid.A-1886-22
4
Rule 1:7-4(a) requires courts "by an opinion or memorandum decision,
either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon in
all actions tried without a jury, on every motion decided by a written order that
is appealable as of right [] . . . ." (emphasis added). Findings of fact and
conclusions of law are also required on "'every motion decided by [a] written
order[] . . . appealable as of right.'" Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275,
282 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting R. 1:7-4(a)).
The trial court denied the original motion for defendant's failure to appear
at oral argument. When defendant filed the same motion again, and failed to
appear again, the trial court placed on the record both the reasons for the
procedural denial of the motion and the substantive reasons the motion to vacate
the default was denied. The trial court orally stated its findings and correlated
them with the relevant legal conclusions as required by Rule 1:7-4.
Affirmed.
A-1886-22
5