DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY v. RICA ENTERPRISES, INC.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5064-15T1

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR
SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST
2006-OPT2, ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT2,

        Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICA ENTERPRISES, INC.; 531-535
JEFFERSON AVENUE CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.; NATIVIDAD
CORREIA; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
CONTINENTAL TRADING & HARDWARE;
TD BANK, N.A.; NEW MILLENNIUM
BANK; AFCO ELECTRIC CO., INC.;
GERALD A. YEAGER; JEFFERY W.
YEAGER; STATE OF NEW JERESEY,

        Defendants,

and

SOPHIA COSTA,

     Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________________

              Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided December 21, 2017

              Before Judges Koblitz and Suter.
            On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
            Chancery Division, Union County, Docket No.
            F-045308-14.

            Sophia Costa, appellant pro se.

            Greenberg   Traurig,   LLP,   attorneys   for
            respondent (Brian Pantaleo and Yangho Charles
            Shin, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

     Defendant Sophia Costa (Costa) appeals the May 27, 2016 order

denying    her   objection   to   the   entry   of   a   final   judgment   of

foreclosure on certain residential real estate.            We affirm.

     In 2006, Costa and Natividad Correia1 executed a $543,750 note

and a mortgage with Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One),

regarding a residential property in Elizabeth.           In September 2010,

Costa's mortgage was assigned by Option One to plaintiff Deutsche

Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee For Soundview Home Loan

Trust   2006-OPT2,    Asset-Backed      Certificates,     Series   2006-OPT2

(plaintiff) and recorded on September 29, 2010.

     Costa defaulted on the note in February 2010.           Plaintiff sent

Costa a notice of intention (NOI) to foreclose on September 3,

2013.     Costa did not cure the default.




1
  Because defendant Natividad Correia has not appealed, our opinion
only makes reference to facts related to Costa.


                                        2                            A-5064-15T1
     In October 2014, plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint,

which named Costa as a defendant.       Costa filed a contesting answer

in which she denied plaintiff had standing to enforce the mortgage

loan.

        In September 2015, when Costa failed to appear on the trial

date, her answer was stricken and a default was entered.              Costa

subsequently filed a motion to vacate the default, alleging that

plaintiff lacked standing.2

     In ruling on the motion, the trial court found that Costa

"did not provide an excusable reason" for being absent from the

trial.     Also, Costa was "legally and factually incorrect" that

plaintiff lacked authority to foreclose.          The court found the

Option One note was indorsed in blank and plaintiff was the

"bearer" of the note.        Also, "the assignment of mortgage was

recorded    on   September   29,   2010   to   [p]laintiff   with     [the]

[c]omplaint being filed well after, on October 29, 2014."




2
  Costa also asked to dismiss the complaint because she claimed
plaintiff did not conform with the Business Corporation Act,

N.J.S.A. 14A:1-1 to -17-18. Costa has not pursued that argument
on appeal and as such it is deemed to be waived. Gormley v. Wood-
El, 
218 N.J. 72, 95 n.8 (2014); Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP v. N.J.
Dep't of Law & Pub. Safety, Div. of Law, 
421 N.J. Super. 489, 496
n.5 (App. Div. 2011).


                                    3                               A-5064-15T1
     In April 2016, plaintiff applied under Rule 4:64-9 for entry

of a final judgment of foreclosure. Costa opposed the application,

asserting again "plaintiff's lack of standing, failure to prove

transfer of the assignment of mortgage and the blank endorsement

on the note."    The court denied Costa's objection on May 27, 2016.

Costa "assert[ed] the same arguments that were included in her

previous    motions,"    and   because     the    court   had     "sufficiently

addressed [them] in detail," it found "the same analysis stills

stands." Also, Costa failed to object to the amount that plaintiff

alleged    was   due   under   the    mortgage.      A    final    judgment    of

foreclosure was entered on June 21, 2016.

     On appeal, Costa challenges the May 27, 2016 order that denied

her objection to entry of the final judgment.               She contends the

court erred in finding plaintiff had standing because there was

no proof the note was transferred or the mortgage was assigned to

plaintiff.

     A party seeking to establish its right to foreclose on a

mortgage must generally "own or control the underlying debt."

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 
422 N.J. Super. 214, 222

(App. Div. 2011) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 
418 N.J.

Super.    592,   597   (App.   Div.    2011)).      See    Bank    of   N.Y.   v.

Raftogianis, 
418 N.J. Super. 323, 327-28 (Ch. Div. 2010).                      In


                                       4                                A-5064-15T1
Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 
428 N.J. Super. 315, 318

(App. Div. 2012), we held that "either possession of the note or

an assignment of the mortgage that predated the original complaint

confer[s] standing," thereby reaffirming our earlier holding in

Mitchell, 
422 N.J. Super. at 216.

     Costa appeals only the May 27, 2016 order.     See W.H. Indus.,

Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltda, 
397 N.J. Super. 455, 458 (App.

Div. 2008) ("It is clear that it is only the orders designated in

the notice of appeal that are subject to the appeal process and

review.").   She did not appeal the November 30, 2015 order where

the court rejected her contention that plaintiff lacked standing

to foreclose.   It was there the court found "the assignment of

mortgage was recorded on September 29, 2010 to [p]laintiff with

[the] [c]omplaint being filed well after, on October 29, 2014."

"Given that the mortgage was properly recorded and appears facially

valid, under New Jersey law there is a presumption as to its

validity, and the burden of proof as to any invalidity is on the

party making such an argument."       In re S.T.G. Enters., Inc., 
24 B.R. 173, 176 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1982) (citations omitted).        Costa

submitted nothing to the court to overcome this presumption.        As

such, the recorded mortgage provided a basis for plaintiff's

standing to enforce the mortgage loan.


                                  5                          A-5064-15T1
     After carefully reviewing the record and the applicable legal

principles, we conclude that Costa's further arguments are without

sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.     R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

     Affirmed.




                                6                         A-5064-15T1