Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5917-13T4
10-04-2016
ONEWEST BANK, FSB, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RODNEY O. LEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Rodney O. Lee, appellant pro se. Blank Rome, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Donna M. Bates and Louis A. Greenfield, of counsel and on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Espinosa. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-61487-09. Rodney O. Lee, appellant pro se. Blank Rome, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Donna M. Bates and Louis A. Greenfield, of counsel and on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by ESPINOSA, J.A.D.
Defendant Rodney O. Lee admittedly defaulted on his mortgage as of July 1, 2009. Final judgment was entered in this foreclosure action on December 18, 2013 and the property in question was sold at a sheriff's sale on September 16, 2014. In this appeal, defendant seeks to set aside the order granting summary judgment and final judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Defendant also filed a notice of appeal from an order denying his motion for reconsideration. On December 3, 2015, this court, upon its own motion, dismissed the appeal for failure by appellant to file a timely brief. --------
Defendant argues that genuine issues of fact exist that precluded summary judgment here. He contends that plaintiff's claim was barred as a result of its failure to include Fannie Mae as a necessary and indispensable party. He also argues plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that it had an ownership interest in the note and was a holder of the note to establish standing and that plaintiff failed to notify him of its status as lender.
In granting summary judgment, Judge Harriet F. Klein noted:
Plaintiff has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that it is the holder of the Note and Mortgage by virtue of a Loan Sale Agreement on 3/19/09. As such, it has standing to sue. Further, it has been authorized by Fannie Mae, the owner of the Note, to pursue this action on its behalf to protect its interests. Plaintiff has provided certified true copies of the Note and Mortgage.
Judge Klein also noted that the certifications submitted in support of plaintiff's claim complied with Rule 1:6-6.
After reviewing defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we conclude that Judge Klein's decision was fully supported by the record and that defendant's arguments require no further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION