CUMANET, LLC v. AYANTI UDO UDOMA

(NOTE: The status of this decision is published.)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2320-06T32320-06T3

CUMANET, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

AYANTI UDO UDOMA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

 

Submitted November 7, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Skillman and Yannotti.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. F-2197-06.

Ayanti Udo Udoma, appellant pro se.

Hill Wallack, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Eric P. Kelner, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a final judgment of the Chancery Division, entered on November 9, 2006, which awarded plaintiff the $268,076.35 outstanding balance on defendant's mortgage, plus interest and counsel fees, and foreclosed the mortgage. On appeal, defendant presents the following argument:

AS EVIDENCED BY ALL EXHIBITS PRODUCED BY BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE AND EXPRESSLY CONFIRMED BY THE ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN UNITED TELETECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AND CUMANET, LLC IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ATTENDANT NOTE AND MORTGAGE CARRIED BY APPELLANT, UNITED TELETECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION IS THE SERVICER OF APPELLANT'S ERSTWHILE MORTGAGE AND HENCE THE ONLY BONA FIDE PARTY WITH LEGAL STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON APPELLANT. BESIDES, NJ'S EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE MAKES THE ADVANTAGE SOUGHT BY CUMANET AND GRANTED BY THE LOWER COURT, UNCONSCIONABLE. THEREFORE, CUMANET, LLC DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE ON APPELLANT AND THE LOWER COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO CUMANET.

We reject this argument and affirm the judgment of foreclosure substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Lehrer's oral opinions of July 13 and September 8, 2006. Defendant's argument does not warrant any additional discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

Although the appeal was listed for oral argument, appellant did not appear on the argument date. Consequently, the case was submitted for decision based on the briefs without oral argument.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2320-06T3

November 15, 2007