DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY v. PAUL T. PERSADIE

Annotate this Case
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1031-16T3


DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY,
as Trustee for New Century Home
Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-
B, Asset Backed Pass-Through
Certificates,

        Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

PAUL T. PERSADIE, STEPHEN
PERSADIE, TAMIKA PERSADIE,

     Defendants-Appellants.
__________________________


              Submitted November 29, 2017 – Decided February 12, 2018

              Before Judges Koblitz and Manahan.

              On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
              Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No.
              F-029733-13.

              Paul T. Persadie, appellant pro se.

              Duane Morris, LLP, attorneys for respondent
              (Brett L. Messinger and Stuart I. Seiden, of
              counsel and on the brief).


PER CURIAM
     In    this     residential   foreclosure   case,   Paul   T.   Persadie

appeals from an October 6, 2016 final judgment in favor of Deutsche

Bank Trust Company Americas (Deutsche).         Persadie did not file an

answer     to     the   foreclosure   complaint,   although     given     the

opportunity to do so after his motion to dismiss the complaint was

denied.     He opposed the entry of final judgment, arguing that

Deutsche lacked standing to foreclose because it was not the holder

of the note and, without specificity, that the amount due was

incorrect.       On appeal, Persadie argues that Deutsche bank did not

present sufficient proof of its standing to foreclose.               Because

Deutsche obtained an assignment of the mortgage prior to filing

the foreclosure complaint and also had possession of the note, we

affirm.

     Persadie obtained an adjustable rate mortgage in the amount

of $159,750 on August 12, 2005, which was recorded on September

6, 2005.        Persadie defaulted on February 1, 2013.        The mortgage

was assigned to Deutsche on June 18, 2013.              Deutsche filed the

foreclosure complaint on August 21, 2013 and an amended complaint

on December 12, 2014, correcting the address.            Deutsche attached

a certified copy of the assignment of mortgage and a certified

copy of the note to its application for final judgment.

     In Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 
422 N.J.

Super. 214, 225 (App. Div. 2011), "we held that either possession


                                      2                             A-1031-16T3
of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the

original complaint conferred standing."               Deutsche Bank Tr. Co.

Ams.   v.   Angeles,    
428 N.J.   Super.    315,   318     (App.   Div.     2012)

(emphasis added).

       This court has been informed that appellant filed a Petition

for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy on July 25, 2017.                 The filing of this

petition operates, under 11 U.S.C.A. § 362, as an automatic stay

of   actions    and   proceedings    against    the    debtor.        Due   to    the

automatic      stay   provision,     this   court     lacks    jurisdiction        to

consider the merits of this appeal.             Therefore, this appeal is

dismissed without prejudice and without costs.                Any party may move

for reinstatement of this appeal, without costs, if the Bankruptcy

Court lifts the automatic stay or allows for the prosecution of

this appeal, or after the bankruptcy proceedings are complete.

       Dismissed.




                                        3                                   A-1031-16T3


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.