Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2773-14T3
06-13-2016
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Grantor Trustee of the Protium Master Grantor Trust, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEF A. BASTAR and JANET M. BASTAR, Defendants-Appellants.
Nicholas A. Stratton argued the cause for appellants (Denbeaux & Denbeaux, attorneys; Mr. Stratton, on the briefs). Stuart H. West argued the cause for respondent (Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, LLC, attorneys; Mr. West, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Espinosa and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. F-036979-10. Nicholas A. Stratton argued the cause for appellants (Denbeaux & Denbeaux, attorneys; Mr. Stratton, on the briefs). Stuart H. West argued the cause for respondent (Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, LLC, attorneys; Mr. West, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendants Josef A. Bastar and Janet M. Bastar appeal from the Chancery Division's Final Judgment of Foreclosure and portions of an earlier order denying their cross-motion for summary judgment, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing defendants' counterclaim.
On appeal, defendants contend that it was error for the court to rely upon our holding in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2012), in determining plaintiff had standing to bring the action. According to defendants, application of the standard for proof of standing established in Angeles "drastically lowered the Mitchell standing requirement of possession of both the note and the mortgage to a far more permissive requirement of possession of either the note or an assignment of the mortgage." Defendants argue that "[f]or the past three years [the court's holding in Angeles] has misguided trial courts regarding the issue of a foreclosure plaintiff establishing standing."
We disagree with defendants' characterization of our earlier decisions and find their arguments to be 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 Robert P. Contillo in his thoughtful and comprehensive oral decision.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011).