GOSHEN MORTGAGE, LLC VS. DANIEL WILLIAMS(F-031723-14, PASSAIC 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4811-15T1
GOSHEN MORTGAGE, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DANIEL WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
ROSA WILLIAMS, NEW CENTURY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHILTON
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendants.
_________________________________
Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided October 23, 2017
Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket
No. F-031723-14.
Daniel Williams, appellant pro se.
Friedman Vartolo, LLP, attorneys for
respondent (Adam J. Friedman, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Daniel Williams appeals from a final judgment of
foreclosure contending plaintiff Goshen Mortgage, LLC failed to
establish its predecessor in this action, Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC, possessed the note and mortgage when it filed
its foreclosure complaint. Because the record reveals
plaintiff's predecessor established its standing by actual
possession of the note and mortgage and a duly recorded
assignment of mortgage pre-dating its complaint, we affirm.
Defendant borrowed $345,100 from Nationwide Equities
Corporation in March 2008, executing a thirty-year note and a
non-purchase money mortgage on his home. The loan went into
default eight months later after defendant and his wife suffered
serious health issues. As reflected in the 2014 foreclosure
complaint and in counsel for Bayview's certification of diligent
inquiry pursuant to R. 4:64-1(a)(2), the note and mortgage were
assigned first to Bank of America, N.A., then to the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development and then to the original
plaintiff, Bayview. While the matter was pending in the
Chancery court, Bayview transferred physical possession of the
note and mortgage to Goshen and recorded an assignment of
mortgage documenting the transfer. The Chancery judge amended
the caption accordingly.
2 A-4811-15T1
Following discovery, Goshen moved for summary judgment.
Defendant opposed, arguing that certain signatures on the
assignments of mortgage were forged. He submitted two almost
identical reports from a purported handwriting expert, each
concluding, without explanation, that the signatures were
forged.
After hearing oral argument, Judge McVeigh entered summary
judgment for plaintiff, addressing and rejecting each of
defendant's arguments in opposition to the motion in a
comprehensive written opinion. After a detailed review of the
documents in the record, she found Goshen established its own
and its predecessor Bayview's standing by virtue of a
certification by its servicer's employee made on personal
knowledge in accordance with R. 1:6-6. See Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 597-600 (App. Div. 2011).
Based on a review of Goshen's records, the employee was
able to attest to Bayview's acquisition of the original note and
mortgage six months before the filing of the complaint and its
transfer of those original documents to Goshen during the
pendency of the litigation, which continued to hold them at the
time of the motion. As actual holders of the mortgage,
plaintiff and its predecessor easily established standing to
3 A-4811-15T1
pursue its foreclosure. See Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418
N.J. Super. 323, 330-31 (Ch. Div. 2010).
Judge McVeigh was also satisfied that Goshen established it
and its predecessor's standing through the chain of recorded
assignments. Because Bayview had a recorded assignment of
mortgage predating the complaint, it had standing to initiate
the foreclosure. See Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v.
Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012). Goshen's
physical possession of the note and a recorded assignment of
mortgage likewise provided it standing to pursue the complaint
to judgment. See Ibid. Judge McVeigh rejected the proffered
expert reports as net opinions and questioned whether even a
forgery in the recorded assignments would affect plaintiff's
standing in light of its possession of the original note and
mortgage.
Defendant appeals, reprising the standing arguments he made
to the trial court. Having considered defendant's arguments and
reviewed the record on the motion, we affirm, substantially for
the reasons expressed by Judge McVeigh in her opinion of
December 4, 2015. Because we agree defendant presented no
competent proof of forgery, we need not consider whether summary
judgment could have been entered had defendant raised a genuine
4 A-4811-15T1
issue as to the authenticity of the signatures on the
assignments.
Affirmed.
5 A-4811-15T1