Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Wells Fargo Bank, Na v. Christopher C. Maxwell

April 9, 2012

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
CHRISTOPHER C. MAXWELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Salem County, Docket No. F-26202-08.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted: December 21, 2011

Before Judges Axelrad and Ostrer.

In this mortgage foreclosure case, defendant Christopher Maxwell appeals from an order entered on May 14, 2010, denying his motion to vacate an alleged void judgment, which he filed after the sheriff's sale of the foreclosed property. Defendant apparently argued there was improper service, lack of standing, no jurisdiction and lack of proper due process of law. We affirm.

On August 30, 2004, defendant borrowed $320,000 from plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, NA, to purchase a home located in Pilesgrove, secured by a note and purchase money mortgage. The mortgage was recorded with the Salem County Clerk on September 1, 2004. Defendant defaulted on the loan on April 1, 2008. Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint against defendant on July 14, 2008. Plaintiff filed an affidavit of service dated July 15, 2008, reflecting service that day on twenty-nine-year old Lisa Wells, a "member of household." Defendant did not file an answer or respond to the complaint. On September 9, 2008, plaintiff filed a request and certification of default against defendant.

It appears that in or around February 2009, defendant filed a motion to vacate "default judgment," though only default had been entered. He contended there never was a response to his request for validation so proof never was provided that the debt was valid, he never was served with a summons and complaint, and plaintiff did not provide him with the requested information as to the amount due to bring the loan current.*fn1

According to plaintiff's attorney, the motion was opposed and denied, which we confirmed by reference to the court's Automated Case Management System (ACMS) was by order of February 20, 2009. It is unknown whether there was oral argument and the basis for the denial.

The record does not reflect, however, that defendant ever filed an answer to the complaint. On September 21, 2009, the court entered final judgment of foreclosure by default and, according to the ACMS, a writ of execution. Defendant apparently served plaintiff's attorney with discovery demands in November 18, 2009, almost two months later. According to the transcript of oral argument on December 11, 2009,*fn2 by that date plaintiff had scheduled a sheriff's sale, and defendant had obtained one of the two statutorily-allowed adjournments, N.J.S.A. 2A:17-36. Defendant explained to the court that the matter he was pursuing was a "petition to dismiss summary judgment and also an affidavit by default between the parties" because plaintiff had failed to answer his discovery request. Defendant was apparently requesting a 90 to 120 day adjournment of the sheriff's sale scheduled for the following Monday. He primarily argued that plaintiff did not have standing to foreclose based on the letter he received from another mortgage company that it owned the mortgage and plaintiff was the servicer,*fn3 plaintiff failed to provide him with the original note, and plaintiff failed to comply with the Uniform Commercial Code in filing a "UCC[-]1." Judge James E. Rafferty found there was no legal basis in defendant's papers for his discovery request and postponement of the sheriff's sale. He suggested defendant apply to the sheriff for a second statutory adjournment of the imminent sale.

According to the February 19, 2010 transcript, defendant filed additional motions for a preliminary injunction, to compel discovery, to dismiss the summary judgment, and for recusal.*fn4

Plaintiff filed opposition by letter of February 12, 2010. Defendant renewed his arguments from the prior hearing and further articulated the claim that the foreclosure judgment was void because the complaint did not contain the original, or at least, a certified copy of the note. Following argument, Judge Rafferty denied the motions. The ACMS reflects that orders were entered on that date.

As reflected in the April l6, 2010 transcript, defendant then apparently filed a "motion for an emergency writ of coram nobis" seeking to vacate the judgment following the sheriff's sale.*fn5 Defendant submitted his and Wells' affidavits dated April l5, 2010, claiming the judgment was void because Wells was not a member of his household so he was not properly served with the summons and complaint, and renewed the prior arguments. This appears to have been an ex parte application by defendant because the transcript reflects a colloquy on the record solely between defendant and Judge Rafferty regarding defendant's motion. The judge noted, in part, that this was the seventh motion filed by defendant, the judgment was entered in 2009, the sheriff's sale took place in early April 2010, and he had addressed, rejected, and re-addressed many of defendant's arguments. He found no legal basis for the application and denied defendant's requests for relief, as well as a stay. The ACMS reflects that an order was entered on that date.

On June 28, 2010, defendant filed a notice of appeal of an order entered on May 14, 2010, which he described in the Case Information Statement as "Motion to Vacate a Void Judgment due to improper service, lack of standing, no jurisdiction and lack of proper due process of law." However, in violation of Rule 2:5-l(f)(2), a copy of the order under appeal was not attached. By order of July 26, 2010, we denied defendant's motion for a stay.

Defendant's brief is also woefully deficient. His factual statement and procedural history make no mention of the order under appeal, and, in fact, he does not even include a copy of the order. See Rule 2:6-2(a)(3) (requiring a "concise procedural history including a statement of the nature of the proceedings and a reference to the judgment, order, decision, action or rule appealed from or sought to be reviewed or enforced[]"); Rule 2:6-2(a)(4) (requiring a "concise statement of the facts material to the issues on appeal supported by references to the appendix and transcript[]"). Nor does defendant set ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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