U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. RCL MANAGEMENT

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

U.S. BANK NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RCL MANAGEMENT, GARDEN STATE

POOL I, LLC, TOWNSHIP OF

HILLSIDE,

Defendants,

and

RODNEY LEE,

his heirs devise, and

personal representatives

and his/her, their, or

any of their successors

in right, title and interest,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

October 17, 2017

Submitted September 26, 2017 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Mayer.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-030486-13.

Rodney Lee, appellant pro se.

RAS Citron, LLC, attorneys for respondent (John Habermann and Monika Pundalik, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Rodney Lee seeks to challenge the foreclosure of a mortgage by plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association. Because Lee did not file his notice of appeal until June 21, 2016, we entered an order on July 11, 2016, denying his motion to file his notice of appeal out of time as to the November 24, 2015 final foreclosure judgment. Instead, our order limited his appeal to the May 12, 2016 order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment. However, Lee failed to provide us with the motion judge's statement of reasons for the May 12, 2016 order, and thus we cannot engage in meaningful appellate review of the judge's decision and order. See Cipala v. Lincoln Tech. Inst., 179 N.J. 45, 55 (2004).

As significantly, Lee's appellate brief does not address the merits of the reconsideration motion. Instead, his brief is directed entirely at an interlocutory order dated October 28, 2014, granting summary judgment striking his answer. His attempted appeal of that order is untimely, because his appeal of the final judgment was untimely. However, even if we were to consider his arguments, they are without merit, for the reasons cogently stated by Judge David B. Katz in his written opinion accompanying the October 28, 2014 summary judgment order. Defendant's arguments do not warrant further discussion here. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Summary judgment was properly granted, and Lee has provided no basis to disturb the May 12, 2016 order denying his motion to vacate the final judgment.

Affirmed.