Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0502-15T4
02-06-2017
PNC BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DANIEL WALSH and FRANCES WALSH, MRS. WALSH, WIFE OF DANIEL WALSH, Defendants-Appellants.
Daniel Walsh and Frances Walsh, appellants, pro se. Fein, Such, Khan & Shepard, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Simone P. Sebastian, of counsel and on the brief.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Kennedy and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. F-043104-13. Daniel Walsh and Frances Walsh, appellants, pro se. Fein, Such, Khan & Shepard, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Simone P. Sebastian, of counsel and on the brief.) PER CURIAM
Defendants Daniel and Frances Walsh appeal from a July 21, 2015 final judgment and an October 24, 2014 order granting summary judgment to plaintiff PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC) in a foreclosure action. We affirm.
On October 25, 2005, Daniel Walsh obtained a loan from National City Bank (National) in the amount of $200,000. In connection with that loan, Daniel Walsh signed a promissory note to repay the loan, and he and his wife, Frances Walsh, executed a mortgage securing the loan with property they owned in Ocean Gate, New Jersey. Daniel Walsh defaulted on the loan in December 2008, and he has not made any payments since then.
Effective November 6, 2009, PNC became the successor by merger to National. In April 2013, PNC sent defendants notice of its intention to foreclose on the mortgage. A complaint for foreclosure was then filed in November 2013. Defendants filed an answer. Thereafter, PNC moved for summary judgment and defendants cross-moved to dismiss the complaint.
Based on the certifications submitted by the parties, the Chancery Court granted summary judgment to PNC and denied defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. That ruling was memorialized in an order entered on October 24, 2014. A final judgment in the amount of $251,968.86 and foreclosure was entered on July 21, 2015.
On appeal, defendants raise two arguments: (1) PNC failed to establish that it possessed the note when it filed the complaint on November 20, 2013; and (2) PNC's certification in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish that PNC possessed the note.
We review a summary judgment order de novo, using the same standard employed by the trial court. Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405 (2014). Accordingly, we determine whether the moving party has demonstrated there were no genuine disputes as to material facts and, if not, whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, entitle the moving party to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 405-06; Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995); R. 4:46.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, PNC filed a certification prepared by a "Loan Support Analyst 1" who was employed by PNC. The Analyst certified that she personally examined the business records of PNC and that those records showed that PNC was the holder of the note and mortgage executed by defendants "[p]rior to the commencement of this action[.]" That certification satisfies PNC's requirement to demonstrate that it possessed the note at the time of the filing of the complaint and, thus, had standing to foreclose on the mortgage. See Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 225 (App. Div. 2011) (holding that possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that pre-dates the original complaint confers standing); see also N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301 (the holder of a negotiable instrument has the legal right to enforce the note).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION