Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Porter

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


June 11, 2008

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
DENISE D. PORTER, HER HEIRS, DEVISEES, AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND HIS/HER, THEIR, OR ANY OF THEIR SUCCESSORS IN RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND MICHAEL PORTER, HER HUSBAND, HIS HEIRS, DEVISEES, AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES AND HIS/HER, THEIR, OR ANY OF THEIR SUCCESSORS IN RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST, DEFENDANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, F-634-06.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted May 28, 2008

Before Judges Winkelstein and LeWinn.

In this mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Denise Porter appeals from a final judgment of September 8, 2006, in favor of plaintiff. Defendant challenges various orders entered throughout the course of the litigation, which granted plaintiff summary judgment, struck defendant's answer, entered default against defendant, and referred the case to the Foreclosure Unit of the office of the Superior Court Clerk in Trenton for further proceedings and entry of final judgment as an uncontested case.

Although defendant's brief on appeal does not contain a list of point headings in the table of contents as required by court rule, R. 2:6-2(a)(1), her primary argument on appeal is that the Superior Court of New Jersey lacks jurisdiction over her, as she describes herself as "a Pre-Columbian Indigenous Sovereign Yamassee Muur/Moor." She makes other arguments, relating to the adequacy of plaintiff's complaint, the powers of national banks, and the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692. She also claims that her due process rights have been violated.

Having thoroughly considered defendant's arguments in light of the record and the prevailing law, we conclude that her arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Kenneth Levy on May 19, 2006, in his substantive analysis of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Affirmed.

20080611

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.