EQUITY TRUST COMPANY v. KEITH HINTON II
Annotate this CaseNOT 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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-3766-18T1
A-0094-19T1
EQUITY TRUST COMPANY
CUSTODIAN FBO DARLENE
DIETZEL IRA #Z093 579 AS TO
A 65% INTEREST & EQUITY
TRUST COMPANY CUSTODIAN
FBO ORVAL W. DIETZEL IRA
#Z100 780 AS TO A 35% INTEREST,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KEITH HINTON II,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
HINTON RENOVATIONS, LLC,
Defendant.
________________________________
Submitted November 2, 2020 – Decided December 10, 2020
Before Judges Sabatino and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-
011172-17.
Keith Hinton II, appellant pro se.
Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC, attorneys for
respondent (Ashleigh L. Marin, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Keith Hinton II appeals from two orders of the Chancery
Division in these foreclosure appeals which were calendared back-to-back: (1)
the April 16, 2019 order denying Hinton's motion to vacate a final judgment of
foreclosure and writ of execution; and (2) the August 28, 2019 order denying
his motion to vacate the Sheriff's sale of the subject property. We affirm.
I.
The following facts are derived from the record. On October 12, 2015,
defendant Hinton Renovations, LLC (Renovations) executed a note to Secured
Investment High Yield Fund, LLC (Secured Investment) in the amount of
$115,000. On the same day, in order to secure the note, Renovation executed a
mortgage in favor of Secured Investment for property located in East Orange.
The note and mortgage were personally guaranteed by Hinton.
On November 20, 2015, Secured Investment assigned the mortgage to
plaintiff Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Darlene Dietzel IRA #Z093579
A-3766-18T1
2
as to a 65% Interest & Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Orval W. Dietzel
IRA #Z100780 as to a 35% Interest (Equity Trust). On December 14, 2015, the
mortgage was recorded with the Essex County Clerk.
On May 4, 2017, Equity Trust filed a foreclosure complaint in the
Chancery Division against defendants, alleging a November 30, 2016 default in
the note and mortgage. Defendants were served with the complaint on May 20,
2017 and did not file an answer. On July 19, 2017, the trial court entered a
default against defendants.
On April 30, 2018, the court entered final judgment in favor of Equity
Trust. A Sheriff's sale of the subject property was scheduled for October 16,
2018. Defendants used their two statutory adjournments, resulting in the sale
being scheduled for November 13, 2018.
On November 13, 2018, Hinton filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Equity Trust
filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to confirm the absence of the automatic
stay and allow the foreclosure to continue. On January 30, 2019, the motion
was granted.
On January 25, 2019, Hinton filed a motion in the trial court to vacate the
final judgment and writ of execution. The trial court denied Hinton's motion
and issued the following written statement of reasons:
A-3766-18T1
3
Defendant fails to address Rule 4:50-1, the relevant
court rule. Defendant's moving papers do not discuss
excusable neglect for failure to file a timely answer or
articulate a meritorious defense. Furthermore,
standing, which is the core of Defendant's argument, is
not a basis to vacate judgment in a foreclosure matter.
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Russo, 429 N.J.
Super. 91 (App. Div. 2012).
An April 16, 2019 order memorializes the court's decision.
Hinton subsequently appealed the April 16, 2019 order. While the appeal
was pending, on June 18, 2019, the subject property was sold at a Sheriff's sale.
Equity Trust was the successful bidder.
On June 28, 2019, Hinton filed a motion to vacate the Sheriff's sale. On
August 28, 2019, the trial court denied Hinton's motion. The court found that
defendant does not provide an explanation for his
theory that there were alleged irregularities in the sale,
nor does he present any facts demonstrating any
irregularities in the sale. Rather[,] the substance of
defendant's motion essentially challenges the plaintiff
and the sheriff to provide evidence of a lack of
irregularity in the sale. However, it is the defendant's
burden to demonstrate such an irregularity.
An August 28, 2019 order memorializes the court's decision.
Hinton subsequently appealed the August 28, 2019 order. He argues that
the trial court erred when it denied his motion to vacate the foreclosure judgment
because the record does not establish Equity Trust had standing to pursue
A-3766-18T1
4
foreclosure. In addition, Hinton argues that the trial court erred when it denied
his motion to vacate to the Sheriff's sale because Equity Trust did not produce
an affidavit from the Sheriff that the sale was conducted without irregularities.
II.
When a court has entered a final default judgment, the party seeking to
vacate the judgment must do so pursuant to Rule 4:50-1. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). Rule 4:50-1 provides:
[o]n motion, with briefs, and upon such terms as are
just, the court may relieve a party or the party’s legal
representative from a final judgment or order for the
following reasons: (a) mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
or excusable neglect; (b) newly discovered evidence
which would probably alter the judgment or order and
for which by due diligence could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under R.
4:49; (c) fraud (whether heretofore denominated
intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other
misconduct of an adverse party; (d) the judgment or
order is void; (e) the judgment or order has been
satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment or
order upon which it is based has been reversed or
otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment or order should have prospective application;
or (f) any other reason justifying relief from the
operation of the judgment or order.
The rule is designed "to reconcile the strong interests in finality of judgments
and judicial efficiency with the equitable notion that courts should have
A-3766-18T1
5
authority to avoid an unjust result in any given case." Mancini v. EDS, 132 N.J.
330, 334 (1993).
"A defendant seeking to set aside a default judgment must establish that
his failure to answer was due to excusable neglect and that he has a meritorious
defense." Goldhaber v. Kohlenberg, 395 N.J. Super. 380, 391 (App. Div. 2007).
"'Excusable neglect' may be found when the default was 'attributable to an
honest mistake that is compatible with due diligence or reasonable prudence.'"
Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 468.
Additionally, Rule 4:50-2 requires that all motions seeking relief from a
judgment be filed "within a reasonable time." Motions based on subsections (a),
(b), and (c) are barred if filed "more than one year after the judgment, order or
proceeding was entered or taken." R. 4:50-2.
An order deciding "an application to open, vacate or otherwise set aside a
foreclosure judgment or proceedings subsequent thereto is subject to an abuse
of discretion standard." United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502 (2008)
(citations omitted). We find an abuse of discretion when a decision is "'made
without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies,
or rested on impermissible bias.'" Guillaume, 209 N.J. at 467 (quoting Illiadis
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2010)).
A-3766-18T1
6
As was the case in the trial court, Hinton's brief does not address Rule
4:50-1 or identify the subsection of the rule on which he relies. He provides no
explanation for his failure to answer the complaint or the nearly nine-month
delay in seeking relief from the April 30, 2018 final foreclosure judgment. We
agree with the trial court's conclusion that Hinton did not establish that he was
entitled to relief under the rule.
We also agree with the trial court's conclusion that Hinton's motion, filed
on the eve of the Sheriff's sale, was substantively meritless. Defenses to a
foreclosure are narrow. "The only material issues in a foreclosure proceeding
are the validity of the mortgage, the amount of the indebtedness, and the right
of the mortgagee to" foreclose on the property. Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div. 1993), aff'd, 273 N.J. Super. 542, 547 (App. Div.
1994). Hinton argues, as he did in the trial court, that Equity Trust did not prove
that it had standing to foreclose on the subject property when it filed its
complaint. As the trial court noted, however, standing is not a meritorious
defense to a foreclosure action post-judgment. Russo, 429 N.J. Super. at 101.
We find in the record no basis to reverse the April 16, 2019 order.
We turn to Hinton's appeal of the August 29, 2019 order denying his
motion to vacate the Sheriff's sale. It is well-settled that the court has the
A-3766-18T1
7
authority to set aside a Sheriff's sale and order a resale of the property. First
Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Merola, 319 N.J. Super. 44, 49 (App. Div. 1999). "The
exercise of this power is discretionary and must be based on considerations of
equity and justice." Ibid. "[A] judicial sale may be set aside 'by reasons of
fraud, accident, surprise, or mistake, irregularities in the conduct of the sale'"
and the like. Ibid. (quoting Karel v. Davis, 122 N.J. Eq. 526, 528 (E.&A. 1937)).
We accord deference to such decisions in the absence of a misconception of
applicable law. O'Neill v. City of Newark, 304 N.J. Super. 543, 550 (App. Div.
1997).
Our review of the record reveals the trial court acted within its discretion
when denying Hinton's motion to vacate the Sheriff's sale. As the trial court
aptly concluded, Hinton produced no evidence of an irregularity in the sale or
other grounds for relief. In light of the paucity of evidence produced by Hinton,
Equity Trust had no obligation to produce an affidavit from the Sheriff attesting
to the regularity of the sale.
Affirmed.
A-3766-18T1
8
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
