DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BRUCE BROOMELL (F-019381-14, SALEM 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3116-17T2
DITECH FINANCIAL LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRUCE BROOMELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted January 7, 2019 – Decided January 30, 2019
Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Salem County, Docket No. F-
019381-14.
Bruce Broomell, appellant pro se.
Pluese, Becker, & Saltzman, LLC attorneys for
respondent (Stuart H. West, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
In this foreclosure action, defendant Bruce Broomell appeals from the trial
court's February 16, 2018 order denying his motion to vacate a final judgment
of foreclosure and dismiss plaintiff Ditech Financial LLC's complaint. We
affirm.
We briefly recite the relevant facts and procedural history. On August 6,
2007, defendant executed a note in the mount of $144,000 in favor of
Countrywide Bank, FSB. To secure payment on the note, defendant and
Roxanne Broomell executed a mortgage on a property in Newfield, New Jersey.
In June 2011, Countrywide Bank, FSB assigned the mortgage to BAC Home
Loans Servicing, LP. In May 2013, Bank of America, N.A., successor in interest
to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, assigned the note to Green Tree Servicing
LLC. Pursuant to an August 2015 merger, Green Tree Servicing LLC is now
known as Ditech Financial LLC.
Defendant defaulted on the mortgage in November 2010 and has never
cured the default. On August 2, 2013, plaintiff mailed notices of intent to
foreclosure to defendant. On May 24, 2014, plaintiff filed a foreclosure
complaint, to which defendant filed a contesting answer. 1
After completing its discovery obligations, plaintiff moved for summary
judgment, which defendant opposed. On April 1, 2015, the Honorable Anne
1
The original caption listed Green Tree Servicing LLC as plaintiff. On
December 31, 2015, the trial court entered an order substituting Ditech Financial
LLC for Green Tree Servicing LLC.
A-3116-17T2
2
McDonnell, P.J. Ch., granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The trial
court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on May 31, 2016.
After many adjournments, 2 the sheriff's sale was scheduled for February
5, 2018. On January 22, 2018, defendant filed a motion to vacate the final
judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the foreclosure complaint. The motion was
returnable on February 16, 2018, and the sheriff's sale was rescheduled to
February 26, 2018. On February 16, 2018, after oral argument, Judge
McDonnell rendered an oral decision denying defendant's motion. The subject
property was sold at a sheriff's sale on March 12, 2018.
On March 14, 2018, defendant appealed the trial court's February 16, 2018
order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure and dismiss
the foreclosure complaint. On appeal, defendant raises the following points for
our review:
I. THE STATUTE GRANTING THE RIGHT
CONTAIN[S] ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS TO
PUT THE COURT IN MOTION AND GIVE ITS
JURISDICTION[.] THE COURT ERRED
WHEN [THE] PETITION FAILED TO
CONTAIN ALL OF THESE ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS.
2
Defendant also filed two motions to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure
on June 1, 2017 and July 25, 2017. Judge McDonnell denied the first motion on
June 27, 2017. The second motion was withdrawn as a result of defendant filing
a bankruptcy petition.
A-3116-17T2
3
II. THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE ORIGINAL
NOTE[.] PLAINTIFF FAILS TO PROVE THE
NOTE IN QUESTION[.] HE HAS NO CLAIM.
MORTGAGE FOLLOWS THE NOTE.
III. NOTES AND ASSIGNMENTS PRODUCE
OWNERSHIP WHICH NEEDS TO BE
CERTIFIED[,] AUTHENTICATED AND
VALID.
IV. FRIENDLY BANKS ARE A THING OF THE
PAST[.] BANKS INFLATE[D] [THE] QUOTE
SO I COULD NOT CATCH UP.
V. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SERVE A NOTICE
OF INTENTION TO FORECLOSE . . . THAT
STRICTLY COMPLIES WITH THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE
NEW JERSEY FAIR FORECLOSURE ACT.
VI. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN [GRANTING]
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN DISCOVERY
WAS NOT COMPLETED.
VII. THE COURT ERRED WHEN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON NO PERSONAL
KNOWLEDGE FROM [THE CERTIFYING
INDIVIDUAL].
VIII. THE ISSUES WHEN COMPLETION OF
SERVICE IS NOT BY RULE OF LAW [SIC].
Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we
affirm for substantially the reasons expressed in Judge McDonnell's well-
reasoned oral decision. We add only the following comments.
A-3116-17T2
4
Rule 4:50-1 governs relief from a judgment or order. In general, "[t]he
trial court's determination under [Rule 4:50-1] warrants substantial deference,
and should not be reversed unless it results in a clear abuse of discretion." US
Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012).
Defendant primarily contends that the final judgment of foreclosure
should be set aside because plaintiff did not possess the original note or have
standing to foreclose. At a hearing on the summary judgment motion, however,
plaintiff produced the original note, which Judge McDonnell determined was
authentic. Accordingly, Judge McDonnell correctly determined that plaintiff
had standing to foreclose because it had both actual possession of the note and
a recorded assignment of the mortgage that predated the complaint . See
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App.
Div. 2012) ("[E]ither possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage
that predate[s] the original complaint confer[s] standing.").
The remaining arguments raised by defendant are without sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3116-17T2
5