NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC v. EUN MI LEE-SIN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

EUN MI LEE-SIN, his/her heirs,

devisees, and personal

representatives, and his, her

their or any of their successors

in right, title, and interest,

MRS. EUN MI LEE-SUN, wife of

Eun Mi Lee-Sin, MORTGAGE

ELECTRIC, as Nominee for first

American Realty Capital Corp.,

MORTGAGE ELECTRIC, as nominee

for JP Morgan Chase,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________

December 13, 2016

Submitted October 31, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. F-62261-09.

Joseph A. Chang, attorney for appellant Eun Mi Lee-Sin (Mr. Chang, of counsel; Jeffrey Zajac, on the brief).

Sandelands Eyet LLP, attorneys for respondent (Robert D. Bailey, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In 2006, defendant Eun Mi Lee-Sin (Lee-Sin) executed a note to First American Realty Capital Corp. (First American) in the amount of $1,000,000 and a mortgage in the same amount to defendant Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS) to secure the property. On February 1, 2009, Lee-Sin defaulted on the mortgage.

In November 2009, MERS, as nominee for First American, assigned the mortgage to Aurora Loan Services who filed a complaint for foreclosure. In June 2012, Aurora assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, and in 2014, Nationstar was substituted as the plaintiff in this matter.

Plaintiff filed an application for entry of final judgment. The supporting certification included an itemization of accrued interest for the default period of February 2009 to September 2014, but the attached records only showed interest rates for 2009. Lee-Sin argued therefore, in his opposition to the application, that he had been overcharged interest as the mortgage was subject to an adjustable interest rate.

Following oral argument, the motion judge permitted plaintiff to file an additional submission regarding the adjustable interest rate of the loan, allowing defendant the opportunity for review and comment. A supplemental certification was subsequently filed with an attached copy of plaintiff's "business records reflecting the interest rate changes through the life of this loan." Lee-Sin again opposed the entry of final judgment, contending that the supplemental certification did not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of Rule 1:6-6 and the hearsay business records exception as required under N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). By a letter order of January 13, 2015, the motion judge denied Lee-Sin's objections. Final judgment was entered on June 12, 2015.

Lee-Sin contends in this appeal, as he did in the trial court, that the supplemental certification provided by plaintiff "lacked personal knowledge and failed to provide an evidentiary basis to support [plaintiff's] allegation of the interest due and owing during the years 2010 to 2014." We disagree.

We review the trial court's decision to allow the supplemental certification and its attachments to be considered as part of the application to enter final judgment for an abuse of discretion. "A trial court's evidentiary rulings are entitled to deference absent a showing of an abuse of discretion." State v. Nantambu, 221 N.J. 390, 402 (2015) (quoting State v. Harris, 209 N.J. 431, 439 (2012)).

We are satisfied there was no basis to reject the supplemental certification. Hugh Zhao certified that he was employed by plaintiff as a document execution specialist, and familiar with the records of plaintiff, attesting that it was the regular practice of plaintiff to make records and keep them in the ordinary course of business. Zhao further stated he "acquired personal knowledge . . . by examining the business records relating to the subject mortgage loan." He confirmed that the attached records of interest rates were "copies of documents and of printouts which are part of the business records maintained by [plaintiff] in connection with its servicing of this loan," and that the attached business records reflected "the interest rate changes through the life of this loan."

The certification satisfied the requirements of both Rule 1:6-6 and N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6); therefore, the judge did not abuse his discretion in considering the document and allowing the entry of final judgment. We note there was no challenge to the amount due nor the specific interest rates contained in the certification.

Affirmed.