GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING INC v. CHAIM FRIEDMAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NOS. A-4306-10T4

A-4307-10T4

A-4308-10T4

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,

INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHAIM FRIEDMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________

February 1, 2013

Submitted January 23, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Yannotti.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County, Docket Nos. F-45978-08, F-50705-08, and F-50708-08.

Chaim Friedman, appellant pro se (Earl S. David, on the brief).

Milstead & Associates, L.L.C., attorneys for respondent (Nelson Diaz, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

In these appeals, which we have consolidated for purposes of decision, defendant Chaim Friedman (Friedman) challenges orders entered by the Chancery Division, which denied his motions for reconsideration of orders denying his motions to set aside final judgments of foreclosure. We affirm.

The final judgment at issue in A-4306-10 pertains to property located at 72 Evans Avenue in Trenton. The judgment in A-4307-10 relates to the property at 78 Oak Lane in Trenton. The judgment in A-4308-10 concerns property at 130 Grand Street in Trenton.

The relevant facts in all three cases are essentially the same. Friedman borrowed monies from plaintiff Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (Greenpoint) to purchase the aforementioned properties, apparently for investment purposes. To secure the loans, Friedman issued purchase money mortgages to Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), which was acting as Greenpoint's nominee.

It is undisputed that Friedman defaulted on the loans. MERS assigned the notes to Greenpoint, which filed complaints to foreclose on the properties secured by the mortgages. Friedman did not file answers to the complaints involving the Evans Avenue and Oak Lane properties, and final judgments of foreclosure were entered in those matters. Friedman filed an answer and counterclaim in the case involving the Grand Street property. Thereafter, the court granted Greenpoint's motion for summary judgment, struck Friedman's answer and counterclaim, and entered a final judgment of foreclosure.

Friedman later filed motions to vacate the judgments. He alleged that: (1) he had never been served with the complaints, (2) MERS did not have standing to assign or transfer the mortgages to Greenpoint, (3) notices of the assignments had never been provided to him, and (4) Greenpoint did not provide him with copies of the mortgages or notes. The trial court entered orders denying the motions without prejudice.

Friedman thereafter filed motions for reconsideration, which the trial court denied. Judge Mary C. Jacobson issued statements of reasons with the orders entered in each case. The judge stated that the court's records indicated that Friedman had been served with the summons and complaint in each case.

The judge also said that Friedman had not presented competent evidence in support of his contention that MERS was not authorized to assign the mortgages to Greenpoint. The judge additionally stated that Friedman had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to contest the foreclosures. Friedman's appeals followed.

Friedman raises the same arguments in the three appeals. He argues that Greenpoint's alleged lack of service of process rendered the judgments void as a matter of law, and he is not required to show a meritorious defense. He also contends that the motion judge erred by relying upon Greenpoint's submissions in concluding that Greenpoint had standing to pursue the complaints.

We are satisfied from our review of the record that Friedman's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We accordingly affirm the orders denying Friedman's motions for reconsideration substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Jacobson in the statements appended to her orders. We add the following comments.

As Judge Jacobson noted, reconsideration is "'a matter within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised in the interest of justice.'" Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 384 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting D'Atria v. D'Atria, 242 N.J. Super. 392, 401 (Ch. Div. 1990)). Reconsideration is appropriate when "'1) the [c]ourt has expressed is decision based on a palpably wrong or irrational basis, or 2) it is obvious that the [c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent evidence.'" Id. (quoting D'Atria, supra, 242 N.J. Super. at 401). We are satisfied that Judge Jacobson did not abuse her discretion by denying Friedman's motions.

Friedman contends that the default judgments were void as a matter of law because he was never served with the summonses and complaints. However, as Judge Jacobson pointed out, the court's records indicate that a summons and complaint in each case were served in each case at a residence in Lakewood, New Jersey, upon a person who represented herself to be Friedman's wife. Friedman says that the Lakewood home "had" been his residence but he provided no evidence indicating that it was not his "dwelling place or usual place of abode" for purposes of personal service under Rule 4:4-3(a)(1).

Furthermore, in the certifications that Friedman submitted to the trial court in support of his motions, Friedman conceded he had been served with the summonses and complaints. In each certification, Friedman stated that MERS did not have authority to assign or transfer the mortgage, and he was unaware of this "fact" when he was "served with the summons and complaint." In addition, as we noted previously, Friedman actually filed an answer and counterclaim in response to the complaint filed in the case involving the Grand Street property.

Friedman also contends that the motion judge erred by relying upon Greenpoint's submissions in concluding that it had standing to pursue the foreclosures. In its submissions, Greenpoint indicated that it was the holder of the notes and mortgages on the dates the complaints were filed, thereby establishing that it had standing to pursue the foreclosure actions. Furthermore, as Judge Jacobson noted, Friedman's assertion that Greenpoint did not have standing was based on hearsay, unauthenticated documents and speculation.

Accordingly, the orders appealed from in A-4306-10, A-4307-10, and A-4308-10 are affirmed.