FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION v. NADIRAH A. SHAKUR

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

NADIRAH A. SHAKUR,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

October 30, 2015

Submitted September 17, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Koblitz and Kennedy.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-22145-09.

Nadirah A. Shakur, appellant pro se.

Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C., attorneys for respondent (Joshua B. Sears, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals an order of the Chancery Division denying his motion to vacate a sheriff's sale of defendant's single-family home in Irvington. Defendant alleges that he did not receive notice of the sale as required by statute and court rule. We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in an opinion from the bench by Judge Thomas M. Moore. We add the following by way of providing context only.

Defendant borrowed $170,000 from Bank of America, and secured the loan by giving a mortgage on his home in Irvington. In 2009, plaintiff received and recorded an assignment of the mortgage, and a foreclosure action was commenced. Defendant did not answer the complaint and default was entered against him. Final judgment was entered in 2010, and at defendant's request, the sheriff's sale of the property was adjourned several times to allow him to file a motion to vacate the judgment. That motion was denied in 2011, and defendant's appeal was later dismissed because he failed to file a brief.

Plaintiff obtained an amended final judgment in April 2014 in the amount of $178,477.36, and that same month defendant's motion to vacate the amended judgment was denied.

A sheriff's sale of the property was scheduled for July 8, 2014, and plaintiff provided notice of the sale to defendant by certified and regular mail on June 11, 2014. Notice of the sale was published by the sheriff on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2014. The property was sold to plaintiff for the nominal sum of $100 at the time of the sheriff's sale on July 8, 2014.

Defendant then moved to set aside the sheriff's sale, alleging lack of notice. Judge Moore denied the motion on August 22, 2014, and, in an erudite opinion from the bench, found that defendant was "properly noticed of the sale" and that plaintiff demonstrated "total compliance with all the notice requirements" imposed on it by law. Judge Moore's findings and conclusions are fully supported in the record.

Affirmed.