Married in 1967, Divorced in 1982, Sued for 47 Years of Alimony in 2014

by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher) (LinkedIn)

Divorce (pd)It seems like the plot of a Lifetime movie, but it is not (or, at least, not yet). Plaintiff and defendant marry in 1967 in Vietnam. In 1975, plaintiff flees Vietnam because of the "impending communist takeover." He ends up in New Jersey where, in 1981 he files for divorce. The judgment of divorce is entered in 1982, after which plaintiff re-marries. In 2004, defendant immigrates to the United States and ten years later seeks to vacate the divorce and collect alimony and equitable distribution "based on a 47 year marriage." These are the basic facts in a recent unpublished Appellate Division decision, Chau v. Khon.  

Here are the relevant missing details. After coming to America in 1975, plaintiff sent letters to defendant, "including a signed application for family reunification." Plaintiff's brother also sent letters to defendant. These letters were sent between 1975 and 1981, but defendant never responded. Plaintiff filed for divorce in 1981, asserting a separation of more than 18 consecutive months as the basis for the divorce. Because he had not heard from his wife in six years, and did not know here whereabouts, he sought permission to serve her by publication. The court agreed, and following publication, a judgment of divorce was entered.

Plaintiff remarried and the couple had a son. Plaintiff also had two daughters from his first marriage. In 1993, the daughters came to live with their father and his new wife. In 1996, plaintiff and his son even visited Vietnam and met with defendant. In 2004, defendant immigrated to the United States. She claims that she learned about the divorce in 2006 when she obtained copies of the original complaint and judgment of divorce. Nonetheless, she waited until 2014 to (1) move to vacate the original divorce and (2) file her own complaint for divorce, seeking alimony and equitable distribution going back to the original 1967 wedding date. She also filed lis pendens on three properties, only one of which was owned by plaintiff (the other two were owned by his son). Defendant claimed that she waited ten years to file the complaint because it took her that long to "obtain all of the papers they needed to prove that plaintiff knew where she was living in 1981 and 1982 so she could challenge his fraudulent divorce from her." This was important to her because, among other arguments, defendant claimed that plaintiff's assertion that he did not know her whereabouts when he filed the complaint for divorce was a fraud on the court.

Plaintiff opposed the motion to vacate the divorce and cross moved to discharge the lis pendens and for an award of attorney's fees. The trial court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's motion (except the request for fees). The trial court explained that defendant "admitted that she knew of the divorce in 2006 , but failed to act diligently by waiting until 2014 to file her motion to vacate the divorce."  It also held that defendant failed to "address[] how her motion and proposed new divorce complaint would affect plaintiff's second wife, who had been married to plaintiff for over thirty years." Defendant appealed.

Continue reading “Married in 1967, Divorced in 1982, Sued for 47 Years of Alimony in 2014”

Borrowers Cannot Vacate Final Judgment Of Foreclosure Because They “Read Something Wrong”

Foreclosure (PD)
This might have seemed obvious, but the Appellate Division nonetheless recently confirmed that a borrower's claim that it "read something wrong" could not establish "excusable neglect" sufficient to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure.

In New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency v. Wolinski, borrowers defaulted on their mortgage and their lender filed a foreclosure complaint. The first complaint named borrowers and "John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10 (Names Being Fictitious) Tenants/Occupants." This complaint was voluntarily dismissed against all parties, real and fictitious. The second complaint, filed approximately six months later, also named borrowers and "John Doe and Jane Doe 1-10 (Names Being Fictitious) Tenants/Occupants." This complaint was also voluntary dismissed, but only as to the fictitious defendants.

Borrowers never answered the complaint and the lender filed a request to enter default, and then obtained final judgment by default. The lender scheduled a sheriff's sale but the borrowers filed for bankruptcy protection. The lender moved to lift the bankruptcy stay. After this motion was granted, the borrowers moved to vacate final judgment. They argued: (1) that they misread the dismissal of the second foreclosure complaint to be, like the dismissal of the first one, a dismissal of all defendants, not just the fictitious ones; and (2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it allegedly miscalculated the amount due in the final judgment. The Appellate Division rejected both of these arguments.

 

Continue reading “Borrowers Cannot Vacate Final Judgment Of Foreclosure Because They “Read Something Wrong””

Appellate Division to Foreclosing Lenders: “Do Less” Because If You Do More You Might Make Yourself Liable For Damages

 by:  Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)

 

There is a scene in the movie "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" where the main character goes to a surf instructor to teach him how to surf. The lesson is not that helpful because, among other things, the instructor gives the main character advice that is impossible to follow, like: "Don't do anything. Don't try to surf. Don't do it. The less you do the more you do." And, then later: "try less" and "do less."

I was reminded of this decision when I read the Appellate Division's recent opinion in McRoy v. Eskander. In that case, the Appellate Division held that a lender was not a mortgagee in possession and therefore could not be liable for injuries sustained by someone who slipped and fell on the sidewalk in front of the property. The reason the lender could not be deemed a mortgagee in possession was because it had done almost nothing to maintain the property in the 18 months after it obtained a final judgment of foreclosure.

In McRoy, plaintiff slipped and fell on snow and ice in front of a four-unit apartment building that was owned by Defendant Eskander. At the time of plaintiff's fall, however, the building had been vacant for approximately 18 months. Eskander had defaulted on his loan with Bank of America ("BofA"), which led BofA to foreclose on its mortgage on the property. BofA obtained final judgment of foreclosure but had not proceeded to a sheriff's sale at the time of plaintiff's fall. Once final judgment of foreclosure was entered, Eskander stopped maintaining the property. Except for performing yard work once, BofA did not maintain the property either. It did periodically inspect the property to ensure it was vacant and, to protect its collateral, it paid the real estate taxes and a water bill.

 

 

Continue reading “Appellate Division to Foreclosing Lenders: “Do Less” Because If You Do More You Might Make Yourself Liable For Damages”

Not A Holder In Due Course? Not Necessarily A Standing Problem

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

By now, all lenders have likely been faced with at least one situation where a borrower alleges that the lender lacked standing to sue on a note because the lender was not the holder of the note. While New Jersey courts have largely eliminated this defense, at least in the post-judgment context (see here), a recent decision from the Appellate Division reminds us that a lender can have standing to sue even when it is not a holder in due course.

In Lynx Asset Services, LLC v. Simon Zarour, National City Bank loaned defendant $190,000, and defendant executed a mortgage as security for the note. Thereafter, National City merged with PNC Bank. Sometime later, PNC Bank delivered the original note to Lynx Asset Services, LLC and issued an assignment of the note and mortgage, but did not indorse the assignment. Defendant eventually defaulted on the note and Lynx sued. Defendant admitted that he signed the note and mortgage and that he had stopped paying on the note. He nonetheless argued that Lynx lacked standing to sue because it did not have a signed assignment. The trial court rejected this claim, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that, although Lynx was not a holder in due course, it nonetheless had standing to sue on the note because it was a non-holder with the rights of a holder.

 

Continue reading “Not A Holder In Due Course? Not Necessarily A Standing Problem”

More Courts Reject Eleventh-Hour Attempts To Avoid Foreclosure Based On An Alleged Lack Of Standing

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

 Two more Appellate Division panels have refused to allow defendant's in foreclosure lawsuits to raise standing as an eleventh-hour defense.  As we previously reported — Changing Tide in Forclosure Litigation? Courts Taking Closer Look When Defendants Assert Lack Of Standing At Last Minute — there is now a clear trend against allowing defendants to stay silent in the face of a foreclosure lawsuit only to appear at the last minute, usually on the eve of a sheriff's sale, and seek to vacate final judgment based on an alleged lack of standing to foreclose.  Two recent Appellate Division cases continue to bring this point home. 

In IndyMac Bank FSB v. DeCastro, a residential borrower moved to vacate final judgment and dismiss the complaint 15 months after it was entered, arguing that he was not served with the complaint.  The motion was denied.  Defendant filed a second motion to vacate, arguing, for the first time, that the bank lacked standing to foreclose because it was not assigned the mortgage until after the complaint was filed.  This motion was denied as untimely and defendant appealed.  In an opinion, dated March 13, 2013, the Appellate Division affirmed.  In its decision, among other things, the Appellate Division rejected defendant's standing argument, noting: "[W]e have now made clear that lack of standing is not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint."  Moreover, the Appellate Division held that defendant's standing argument was meritless "particularly given defendant's unexcused, years-long delay in asserting that defense or any other claim."  In arriving at this decision, the Appellate Division relied on many of the cases discussed in our prior post. 

Similarly, in WellsFargo Bank, N.A. v. Lopez, a different Appellate Division panel rejected another residential home owner's last-minute attempt to raise standing as a defense to the foreclosure complaint.  The facts in that case were a bit more egregious because the borrower contributed to the four-year delay between the entry of default and the filing of his motion to vacate by filing numerous bankruptcy petitions and seeking a stay to attempt to short sell the property.  Nonetheless, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate holding, among other things, that the lack of standing, even if true, was not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint, particularly in the post-judgment context.  Again, the Appellate Division relied primarily on the cases included in our prior post.

Changing Tide In Foreclosure Litigation? Courts Taking Closer Look When Defendants Assert Lack Of Standing At Last Minute

by:  Peter J. Gallagher

In a series of recent decisions, New Jersey courts appear to be taking a stance against defendants raising, as a last-minute defense, that a party lacks standing to foreclose.  This is good news for lenders and their assignees, who, prior to these decisions, faced the prospect of proceeding to final judgment of foreclosure, only to have a party appear at the last minute, allege a lack of standing to foreclose, and send the process back to square one. 

The changing body of case law began with the Appellate Division’s opinion in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 2013).  In that case, defendant failed to defend the action or assert a standing issue until two years after default judgment was entered and more than three years after the complaint was filed.  Id. at 316.  Interestingly, the Appellate Division acknowledged that defendant raised a valid concern about plaintiff’s standing to foreclose, but nonetheless refused to vacate final judgment.  In explaining its decision, the Appellate Division noted:

In foreclosure matters, equity must be applied to plaintiffs as well as defendants. Defendant did not raise the issue of standing until he had the advantage of many years of delay. Some delay stemmed from the New Jersey foreclosure system, other delay was afforded him through the equitable powers of the court, and additional delay resulted from plaintiff's attempt to amicably resolve the matter. Defendant at no time denied his responsibility for the debt incurred nor can he reasonably argue that [Plaintiff] is not the party legitimately in possession of the property. Rather, when all hope of further delay expired, after his home was sold and he was evicted, he made a last-ditch effort to relitigate the case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendant was not equitably entitled to vacate the judgment.

Id. at 320. 

 

Continue reading “Changing Tide In Foreclosure Litigation? Courts Taking Closer Look When Defendants Assert Lack Of Standing At Last Minute”

New Jersey Department Of Environmental Protection Announces New Rules For Site Remediation

by: Thomas Spiesman 

 
On August 15, 2011, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ("NJDEP") published proposed rules that represent the final step in the implementation of the 2009 Site Remediation Reform Act ("SRRA"). The SRRA completely overhauls the way environmental investigations and remediations are conducted in New Jersey and introduced the Licensed Site Remediation Professional ("LSRP") program.

The proposed final rule package completes the transformation of the site remediation process from one of NJDEP command-and-control to one that allows for decision-making to be placed in the hands of LSRPs hired on behalf of the remediating party.  LSRPs are responsible for overseeing remediations in accordance with NJDEP regulations, making the day-to-day decisions regarding the remediation of sites, and determining when a cleanup is complete.  Although the NJDEP maintains oversight of remediations and reviews documents submitted by responsible parties and their LSRPs, the responsible parties and their LSRP are allowed to continue with the remediation without waiting for NJDEP approval.

The proposed new Technical Requirements are intended to ensure that remediation is conducted in a way that is protective of human health and the environment, while allowing the party responsible for cleaning up the site and the LSRP flexibility in addressing the different types of sites, contaminants, potential exposure pathways, and geographic settings within the State.  In addition to the proposed Technical Requirements, the NJDEP is producing multiple guidance documents.

Comments on the new rules may be submitted to the NJDEP until October 14, 2011 and the Department anticipates adopting the final rule package by May 2012.