DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, ETC. VS. RICHARD Â EDWARDS(F-031556-10, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4325-15T3
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, AS INDENTURE
TRUSTEE UNDER THE INDENTURE
RELATING TO IMH ASSETS CORP.,
COLLATERALIZED ASSET-BACKED
BONDS, SERIES 2005-4,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
RICHARD EDWARDS and
SIMONE EDWARDS,
Defendants-Appellants.
__________________________________________
Submitted September 11, 2017 – Decided October 11, 2017
Before Judges Accurso and O'Connor.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket
No. F-031556-10.
Richard Edwards and Simone Edwards,
appellants, pro se.
Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent
(Henry F. Reichner, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendants Richard
Edwards and Simone Edwards appeal from the May 27, 2016 General
Equity Part order, which rejected their objections to the entry
of a final judgment of foreclosure sought by plaintiff Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, as indenture trustee to IMH Assets
Corporation. We affirm.
In 2005, defendant Richard Edwards executed a note made
payable to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo). Both
defendants subsequently executed a mortgage, which was secured
by investment property they owned. In 2010, defendants
defaulted on the note. Thereafter, Wells Fargo assigned the
mortgage to plaintiff and, five months later, plaintiff filed a
complaint in foreclosure.
On June 15, 2012, the court granted plaintiff summary
judgment, and held plaintiff could request the entry of final
judgment of foreclosure from the Office of Foreclosure as an
uncontested matter. The matter was dismissed for three years
for lack of prosecution but, upon reinstatement of the complaint
in 2015, plaintiff filed for the entry of final judgment.
Defendants asserted various objections, but on May 27, 2016, the
court rejected those objections and a final judgment in
foreclosure was ultimately entered.
2
A-4325-15T3
On appeal, defendants raise the following arguments for our
consideration: (1) plaintiff never acquired the loan and thus
did not have the authority to foreclose upon the subject
mortgage; (2) plaintiff had no standing to prosecute the action
in foreclosure because it never acquired the loan; (3) the
monthly mortgage payments were never applied to the principal
and interest of the loan; (4) the assignment of the mortgage is
void; (5) defendants were never indebted to Wells Fargo because
it never loaned them any money; (6) plaintiff is judicially
estopped from making certain representations; (7) the court's
conclusion the loan was "not a trust" is incorrect; (8) the
court failed to take judicial notice of certain facts; (9)
plaintiff's counsel engaged in misconduct; and (10) defendants
were denied due process because the court "classified"
defendants' matter as uncontested after the court entered
summary judgment in plaintiff's favor.
As for arguments one through nine, defendants fail to
provide any support for the factual claims they assert in
support of their arguments. It their responsibility to provide
an adequate record for our review, see Rules 2:5-3, 5-4, 6-1,
and the failure to match their arguments with the record not
only undermines their arguments, but also hampers our review.
3
A-4325-15T3
Moreover, defendants do not provide any authority for the
legal contentions upon which they rely. This omission,
compounded by the failure to provide factual support for the
arguments they raise, is tantamount to failing to brief the
issues asserted. The consequence of failing to brief an issue
is waiver of that issue on appeal. Fantis Foods v. N. River
Ins. Co., 332 N.J. Super. 250, 266-67 (App. Div. 2000); Pressler
& Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 5 on R. 2:6-2
(2017). Because none of the issues raised was properly briefed,
they are waived.
As for the last argument, the foreclosure action was only
deemed uncontested after plaintiff prevailed on its motion for
summary judgment. As that procedure is dictated by Rule 4:64-
1(c)(3), we find no error in the court returning the case to the
Office of Foreclosure to proceed as an uncontested matter.
Affirmed.
4
A-4325-15T3