U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-HE3 Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE3 v. INDIA MCRAE, her heirs, devisees and personal representatives and his, their or any of their successors in ri
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-3144-16T1 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-HE3, Asset-Backed Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-HE3, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. INDIA MCRAE, her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives, and his, their or any of their successors in right, title and interest; MR. MCRAE, husband of India McRae; MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. __________________________________ Submitted February 6, 2018 – Decided February 23, 2018 Before Judges Reisner and Gilson. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. F-001383-13. India McRae, appellant, pro se. Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent (Henry F. Reichner, of counsel; David G. Murphy, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this foreclosure case, defendant India McRae appeals from a March 20, 2017 order denying her application to stay eviction, following a sheriff's sale of the mortgaged premises. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the statement of reasons incorporated in the March 20, 2017 order. We add the following brief comments. Defendant defaulted on the mortgage in November 2011. Plaintiff obtained a final judgment of foreclosure by default on September 27, 2015. Defendant is far out of time to appeal from the final judgment or from the earlier order entering default. Her current appeal is limited to the March 20, 2017 order. As to that order, the record contains proof that defendant was served with notice of the sheriff's sale, and we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying the stay of eviction. Affirmed. 2 A-3144-16T1
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.