PNC BANK, N.A. VS. DEIDRE GUINE (F-048672-13, MIDDLESEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3483-15T1
PNC BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DEIDRE GUINE and MR. GUINE,
her husband,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted October 23, 2017 – Decided November 9, 2017
Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex County,
Docket No. F-048672-13.
Deidre Guine, appellant pro se.
Ballard Spahr, LLP, attorneys for respondent
(William J. DeSantis, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Deidre Guine appeals from a final judgment of
foreclosure, arguing she was never served with the amended
complaint upon which the judgment was entered, default was never
entered on the amended complaint, and plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A.
lacked standing. Because the record shows plaintiff had standing
based on its merger with the original mortgagee and its possession
of the note, defendant was properly served with the amended
complaint and default was entered, we affirm.
Defendant does not dispute that she borrowed $187,064 from
National City Mortgage Co. in October 2002, and executed a note
secured by a mortgage on property located in South Amboy. National
City merged with plaintiff in 2009. The following year, plaintiff
modified defendant's loan. On March 1, 2013, defendant defaulted.
Plaintiff filed its foreclosure complaint in December 2013,
and the court granted its motion for entry of default ten months
later. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate the
default. After hearing argument, the court found defendant failed
to offer any explanation for her failure to file an answer and
rejected her contention that plaintiff lacked standing. The court
entered a December 19, 2014 order denying defendant's motion.
In March 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
defendant's default under the loan modification agreement.
Plaintiff served defendant with the amended complaint and summons
by regular and certified mail. Defendant failed to file a
responsive pleading and on April 27, 2015, default was entered.
In May 2015, defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's December 19, 2014 order. The court denied the motion.
2 A-3483-15T1
Plaintiff moved for entry of a final judgment of foreclosure.
Defendant opposed the motion, arguing she was deprived of the
opportunity to contest plaintiff's allegations. The court advised
defendant that her objection to an entry of final judgment was
improper because her challenge was not limited to the correctness
of plaintiff's certification of the amount due. See R. 4:64-1(d).
In January 2016, defendant filed a motion for relief from
"all judgments and orders rendered in favor of plaintiff." In a
February 19, 2016 order, the motion was denied. The court entered
a final judgment of foreclosure ten days later on February 29,
2016. This appeal followed.
We have considered each of plaintiff's arguments and they are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e). We offer the following additional
comments.
Defendant contends the final judgment and the orders denying
her other motions were entered in error because plaintiff lacked
standing and she was not served with either the original or amended
complaint. We find no merit in either contention.
The record shows plaintiff has standing for two reasons.
First, plaintiff possessed the note when the complaint was filed.
See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super.
214, 222 (App. Div. 2011) (finding plaintiff's possession of the
3 A-3483-15T1
note at the time the complaint is filed is sufficient to confer
standing in a foreclosure action). Second, plaintiff has standing
because it is "deemed to be the same corporation" as the original
mortgagee by virtue of National City's 2009 merger with plaintiff.
12 U.S.C.A. § 215(e).
We also find no merit in defendant's assertion that she was
not properly served with either the original complaint or the
amended complaint and that, as a result, the court erred in denying
her motions and entering final judgment. Most simply stated, the
record shows defendant was served in both instances in accordance
with the Rules of Court, and she fails to demonstrate otherwise.
Defendant also claims the court erred because default was not
entered based on her failure to respond to the amended complaint.
The argument is contradicted by the record, which shows defendant
was served with the amended complaint and failed to file a
responsive pleading, and plaintiff filed a notice of default on
April 27, 2015. Further, as defendant admitted in the
certification supporting her January 2016 motion, the court
entered default on April 27, 2015, based on her failure to respond
to the amended complaint. See R. 1:6-8, R. 4:43-1 and R. 4:64-
1(c).
Affirmed.
4 A-3483-15T1