Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Murray

Full title: WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANCIS X. MURRAY…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 29, 2012

DOCKET NO. A-1228-10T1 (App. Div. Jun. 29, 2012)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-1228-10T1

06-29-2012

WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. FRANCIS X. MURRAY, Defendant-Appellant.

Francis X. Murray, appellant pro se. Reed Smith, attorneys for respondent Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Henry F. Reichner, of counsel and on the brief). Honig & Greenberg, attorneys for respondent New Jersey Home Construction, Inc. (Adam D. Greenberg, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and Reisner.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Cape May County, Docket No. F-022110-07.

Francis X. Murray, appellant pro se.

Reed Smith, attorneys for respondent Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Henry F. Reichner, of counsel and on the brief).

Honig & Greenberg, attorneys for respondent New Jersey Home Construction, Inc. (Adam D. Greenberg, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Appellant, Francis X. Murray, seeks relief from the September 17, 2010 Chancery Division order, which provides:

1. Defendant Murray's motion to vacate the Sheriff's sale conducted in this matter is denied.
2. Sheriff is specifically authorized to issue a deed to the third party purchaser [New Jersey Home Construction, Inc. (Home Construction)].

We affirm.

These facts are not disputed. Murray defaulted on a $464,250 mortgage loan from respondent Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Wachovia), which filed this foreclosure action in August 2007. Murray did not defend. The Chancery Division entered a final judgment on February 2, 2009. A Sheriff's sale was scheduled. Murray moved for a stay. The judge denied the stay. Murray filed a motion for reconsideration, which was unsuccessful. The Sheriff's sale was held on August 25, 2010. The successful bidder at the sale was New Jersey Home Construction, Inc. (Home Construction). Murray moved to vacate the Sheriff's sale. Judge William C. Todd, III, denied the motion.

Murray filed this appeal. He did not file a brief conforming to the requirements of Rule 2:6-2. His brief lists the following twenty-one topics:

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS DENIED

RIGHT TO NEW TRIAL IF NO DEFENSE PRESENTED FOR GOOD CAUSE
JUDGE FAILED TO NOTIFY APPELLANT OF HEARING DATE CHANGES
FALSE CERTIFICATIONS
LACK OF VERIFICATION
LACK OF STANDING
SECURITIZATION - INVALIDATION OF FORECLOSURE REMEDY
FRAUD, CONCEALING EVIDENCE, CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION BY EX PARTE TALK
COLLUSION AT AUCTION
FINAL OR INTERLOCUTORY - THE CITI MORTGAGE STATUS RELIANCE
"FORECLOSUREGATE" - AS CAUSE TO REOPEN AND REMAND
NO STANDING AND SHERIFF NEGLIGENCE, MISTAKE AND ERROR
NEW INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT TRIAL
THE TWO SALES DATES/ONE HOME PARADOX
THE BARRING OF REMEDY FOR WACHOVIA
CAUSE OF HEARING MET
HEARING YET TO OCCUR FOR SENIOR LENDER AS PER SHERIFF SALE LIST
NEW EVIDENCE IRONY
RELIANCE ON AVERMENTS, PERJURY
COLLUSION AND RICO CONSPIRACY
INADEQUATE SALE PRICE

After a careful review, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments or discussions. We note that Murray admits the loan obligation, the existence of the mortgage as security for the obligation, and default in payment. The default has never been cured. In short, Murray offers no valid defenses.

Based on our review of the record and arguments of the parties, we determine that the judgment of the Chancery Division is based on findings of fact, which are adequately supported by evidence. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). Moreover, the evidence presented by Wachovia and Home Construction is undisputed.

Affirmed.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION