DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. ANWAR I. CRAWFORD (F-026785-13, MERCER 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5319-16T1
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANWAR I. CRAWFORD,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MRS. ANWAR I. CRAWFORD and
NANCY MESZAROS,
Defendants.
_______________________________
Submitted May 31, 2018 – Decided July 11, 2018
Before Judges Nugent and Currier.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Mercer County, Docket No.
F-026785-13.
Anwar Crawford, appellant pro se.
Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PC, attorneys
for respondent (Brian J. Yoder, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this foreclosure action, defendant Anwar Crawford1 appeals
the June 29, 2017 order of final judgment. After a review of the
contentions in light of the record and applicable principles of
law, we affirm.
On July 18, 2007, defendant executed a promissory note to
Homecomings Financial, LLC for $132,000. To secure the note,
defendant executed a mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Homecomings, its successors
and assigns on the same day. The mortgage was recorded on August
1, 2007.
On July 26, 2012, the mortgage was assigned to GMAC Mortgage,
LLC. The assignment was recorded on July 31, 2012. The mortgage
was assigned to Green Tree Servicing, LLC (Green Tree) on June 12,
2013, and recorded that same day.2
After defendant defaulted on the loan in March 2012, Green
Tree filed a complaint for foreclosure in July 2013. As
defendant's answer denied the allegations in the complaint, the
matter was listed as contested. The trial judge conducted several
1
The judgement at issue is only against Anwar Crawford,
therefore, we refer to him as defendant.
2
In August 2015, Green Tree merged with, and changed its name
to, Ditech Financial, LLC. Plaintiff's motion to substitute Ditech
Financial LLC in the place of Green Tree was granted in February
2016.
2 A-5319-16T1
case management conferences and heard, and denied, defendant's
motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to produce discovery.
At trial, Green Tree's witness produced and authenticated
copies of the note and recorded mortgage, the recorded assignments
of the mortgage, the loan payment history, notices of intent to
foreclose, and certified mail tracking results. The witness
testified he was employed by Green Tree as the Real Estate Owned
(REO) Manager "in charge of repossessing, reselling, [and]
remarketing . . . foreclosed properties" and worked "in conjunction
with the collection department, the foreclosure department[,] and
the legal department." The witness further testified he was
familiar with how Green Tree's business records were created and
maintained. Finally, the witness confirmed the note produced was
a "true, correct copy of the promissory note held by Green Tree."
Defendant declined to call any witnesses, or testify himself,
and did not seek to admit any evidence. In an oral decision issued
December 9, 2014, the trial judge found Green Tree's witness
credible and determined Green Tree demonstrated a prima facie
right to foreclose. He stated:
Based upon [the] evidence[,] the [c]ourt finds
[Green Tree] has established a right to
foreclose by clearly demonstrating the
execution and recording of the mortgage and
defendant's default. The note was endorsed
in blank, the note, ultimately, ended up in
the possession [of] Green Tree Servicing. The
3 A-5319-16T1
mortgage was assigned and, again, ultimately
end[ed] up in the ownership of . . . Green
Tree Servicing. And there's nothing to
indicate that either the note [or] mortgage
were not properly possessed and owned by Green
Tree.
As a result of his findings, the court deemed the matter
uncontested and referred the case to the Office of Foreclosure on
December 30, 2014.
Defendant's objection to the proposed final judgment was
denied and the court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on
June 29, 2017. Defendant appealed, arguing Green Tree and
plaintiff were not the holders of the note or mortgage and had no
standing to foreclose. We disagree.
Defenses to a foreclosure are narrow and limited; the only
material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of
the mortgage, the amount of indebtedness, and the right of the
mortgagee to foreclose on the mortgaged property. Great Falls
Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div. 1993), aff'd,
273 N.J. Super. 542, 547 (App. Div. 1994). To have a right to
foreclose, or standing, "a party . . . must own or control the
underlying debt." Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J Super.
323, 327-28 (Ch. Div. 2010). Standing is established "either [by]
possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that
predated the original complaint." Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v.
4 A-5319-16T1
Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Deutsche
Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 222-23 (App.
Div. 2011)); see also Capital One, N.A. v. James Peck, IV, ___
N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018) (slip op. at 6).
Here, the trial judge found Green Tree presented true copies
of the note and mortgage and was in possession of the documents
prior to the filing of the complaint. Green Tree, therefore, has
satisfied all of the necessary requirements for the entry of a
final judgment. Accordingly, the final judgment was properly
entered.
Affirmed.
5 A-5319-16T1