New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education W198.11

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE UPDATE

2011 Seminar Material

Honorable Margaret Mary McVeigh, P.J.Ch. (Paterson) Rosemarie Diamond, Esq. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg (Mt. Laurel; Philadelphia, PA) Bruce Levitt, Esq. Levitt & Slafkes, P.C. (South Orange) Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq. Administrative Office of the Courts (Trenton)

THE NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

The New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education was created in 1961 to help lawyers and judges increase their general professional competence, keep abreast of developments in the law, and become more proficient in selected areas of practice. Since 1961, ICLE has served the educational needs of the New Jersey bench and bar and continually strives to respond to their many and varied concerns.

A non-profit, completely self-supporting organization, ICLE is the joint venture of the New Jersey State Bar Association, Rutgers - The State University of New Jersey, and Seton Hall University. Representing a merger of the practicing bar and the academic community, the Institute is governed by an autonomous Board of Trustees, which includes representatives of the State Bar Association, deans of the law schools and officers of the participating universities.

The Institute presents more than 250 seminars each year throughout the State, offers audio and video cassettes of seminars, markets software programs especially designed for the practicing attorney, and publishes comprehensive practice manuals and lecture handbooks. Its programs and publications must be financially self-supporting since ICLE is not subsidized in any way. The professional staff of attorneys and other professionals, aided by a dedicated support staff, is headquartered at the New Jersey Law Center in New Brunswick, along with the State Bar Association, the State Bar Foundation, and IOLTA.

The ingredients which contribute most to the stature of the Institute are the talent, time and effort expended by the very best of New Jersey attorneys, representing every field of specialization and every type of practice. The voluntary participation of practicing lawyers and judges as ICLE lecturers, authors, and advisors is appreciated and encouraged, for without their assistance, and the continued support of those we serve, high quality continuing legal education would not be possible.

The material contained in this publication is for educational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for the professional services an attorney would normally provide to a client, including up to the

minute legal research

Copyright © 2011 by the NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE FOR CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION

All Rights Reserved

About the Panelists… Rosemarie Diamond is a Member of Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP with offices in Mount Laurel, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, PA. Her practice areas include creditors’ rights, foreclosures, bankruptcy law, real estate law and collections. Ms. Diamond is admitted to practice in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York. She received her B.S. from Mary Washington College and her J.D. from Temple University School of Law. Bruce Levitt is a Founding Partner of Levitt & Slafkes, P.C. in South Orange, New Jersey, a firm which practices almost exclusively in bankruptcy, commercial litigation and residential real estate transactions. He handles both consumer and commercial bankruptcy matters. Admitted to practice in New Jersey, Mr. Levitt served for twelve years as a panel bankruptcy trustee for the Office of the United States Trustee, where he administered chapter 7 and 11 cases. He also served for six years on the Lawyers’ Advisory Committee of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, where he helped draft rules for bankruptcy law in the New Jersey Bankruptcy Courts. Mr. Levitt serves on the Supreme Court of New Jersey District V-B Fee Arbitration Committee and is a member of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. A Master in the Bankruptcy American Inn of Court, he frequently lectures on bankruptcy topics and his articles have appeared in the New Jersey Law Journal. Mr. Levitt received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Fairleigh Dickinson University and his J.D. from Emory University School of Law, where he served on the Board of Editors of the Emory Law Journal. He served as a law clerk to a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Honorable Margaret Mary McVeigh, P.J.Ch. is Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Passaic County vicinage, and sits in Paterson, New Jersey. Her responsibilities include the General Equity Part and Probate. A Superior Court Judge for 18 years, Judge McVeigh has served in Special Civil Part, the Family Division and the Civil Division. She is Chair of the Probate Part Judges Committee, Chair of the Special Committee to Study Guardianship Monitoring and a member of the Judiciary Surrogates Liaison Committee. Judge McVeigh is a founding member of the Robert Clifford American Inns of Court and serves on its Board of Directors. She was an Adjunct Professor at Montclair State University. Judge McVeigh is a graduate of Mary Washington College and Seton Hall Law School. Kevin M. Wolfe is an Assistant Director at the Administrative Office of the Courts in Trenton, New Jersey.

Mr. Wolfe received his B.S.M.E. from the New Jersey Institute of Technology and his J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law.

  1

FORECLOSURE CASE SUMMARIES    (April 2011) 

              Honorable Margaret M. McVeigh, P.J.Ch.               Kevin M. Wolfe, Esq.               Rosemarie Diamond, Esq.               Bruce Levitt, Esq.      Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee v. Geeta P. Kollory, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion; DOCKET No. A‐1199508T2‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 7, 2010 

The  appellate  court  upheld  the  lower  court’s  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff, holding  the  lower  court  created  a  sufficient  record  of  an  undisputed  default  in  forbearance payments,  leaving no doubt  that  the defendant was  in default of  the  terms of  the forbearance agreement.  Defendant had argued there was evidence that the payments were current and the foreclosure was improper. The record includes a court transcript of oral argument during which the court reviewed the payment history in detail to confirm the existence of the default. 

Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. v. Doris Odoemene, et. al., Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion; DOCKET NO. A‐4438‐08T2‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 28, 2010 

The appellate court upheld the  lower court’s denial of defendant’s motion to vacate summary judgment.  Defendant claimed the plaintiff lacked standing because the assignment of mortgage from MERS  into  the plaintiff was not recorded until after  the foreclosure complaint was filed.  The  lower court  rejected  this argument because  the plaintiff clearly  illustrated  that  it was  the lender at origination and held the note at the time for foreclosure complaint was filed.   MERS had  functioned  as  its  nominee  on  the  original  mortgage.    Moreover,  MERS  assigned  the mortgage into plaintiff prior to the entry of final judgment.  Thus, plaintiff was the correct party in interest at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. 

Emmanuel Odoemene v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion; DOCKET NO. A‐2659‐08T3‐‐‐DECIDED JANUARY 28, 2010 

The  appellate  court  upheld  the  lower  court’s  determination,  on  defendant’s  motion  for summary judgment, that no private cause of action exists under the Fair Credit Reporting Act; and,  that  even  viewing  the  facts  in  the  light most  favorable  to  the  plaintiff,  there was  no evidence that the defendant had acted willfully of negligently in erring on the plaintiff’s credit report.  Also, the error had been corrected. 

U.S.  Bank,  National  Association  as  Trustee  for  CSMC  Mortgage‐Backed  Pass‐Through Certificates, Series 2006‐4 v. Verna Thomas,  et. al., Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion; DOCKET NO. A‐3640‐08T2; DECIDED MARCH 23, 2010 

  2

The Appellate Division upheld  the  lower  court’s  rejection of  the defendants’  claim  that  they were misled by the mortgage broker about the applicable  interest rate for the  loan.   The court found  that  the  interest  rate was  clearly  listed  in  the TILA disclosure  statement  and  the note itself;  and,  no  evidence  was  presented  to  contradict  the  closing  documents. Moreover,  the defendants made payments for two years without raising the issue of an erroneous interest rate.  The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the property cannot be foreclosed because the  husband  signed  only  the mortgage  and  not  the  promissory  note.    To  the  contrary,  the husband’s signature secures the property as collateral for the loan. 

Ronald Patetta v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Unpublished Federal District Court Opinion, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47233, DECIDED‐‐‐MAY 12, 2010 

The district court applies the Rooker‐Feldman Doctrine in dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.  Acknowledging  that many of  the plaintiff’s  allegations  could have  served  as defenses  in  the foreclosure action, attempts to now rescind the mortgage transaction  in the present matter are barred because the claims are inextricably intertwined with the foreclosure judgment.  Plaintiffs had  alleged  that  they  did  not  receive  a  loan  they  originally  bargained  for,  despite  being represented by counsel at closing, and  that Argent, as  lender and Dana Capital, as mortgage broker,  failed  to make  disclosures  under  the  TILA,  15 U.S.C.  Section  1601  and HOEPA,  15 U.S.C. Section 1639. 

Avelo Mortgage, LLC v. Rodney  Jeffery, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion, DOCKET NO. A‐0765‐08T1, DECIDED‐ JULY 15, 2010 

The  appellate  court  reversed  the  lower  court’s  voiding  of  the  plaintiff’s  mortgage,  and remanded the matter for further proceedings to determine the appropriate terms of a modified mortgage that will restore the parties to their appropriate status.  Defendants had rescinded the plaintiff’s mortgage, but failed to return the proceeds.  The court acknowledged that rescission is a defense to foreclosure; however, the consumer must return the proceeds of the loan.  If the consume cannot do so, the court can judicially modify the mortgage and allow its enforcement. 

One  West  Bank,  FSB  v.  Maria  Capo,  et.  al  and  Marva  Coleman  v.  Maria  Capo,  et.  al., Unpublished Trial Court Opinion, Docket No: F ‐5952‐09, Bergen County; DECIDED‐‐JULY 19, 2010 

This  case  involves  a mortgage  rescue  scan.   Marva Coleman,  the  former  owner, was  able  to prove unequivocally  that  she was  the victim of  fraud by Maria Capo and other parties.   The court also acknowledged that the plaintiff was an innocent victim of the fraud but rejected the assertion that the plaintiff was entitled to holder in due course status.  The court declared that the plaintiff’s mortgage, which was  obtained  through  fraud, was void  ab  initio.    Instead,  the 

  3

court granted  the plaintiff an equitable mortgage on  the property,  in  the name of  the Marva Coleman. The court fashioned the principal balance and interest rate for the equitable mortgage.  

HSBC Bank, USA, National Association  for  the benefit of ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006‐NC2  v. Lamiaa Gouda. et. al., Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion, DOCKET NO. A‐1983‐09T2; DECIDED‐‐DECEMBER 17, 2010 

The  appellate  court  affirmed  the  lower  court’s  grant  of  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the plaintiff, rejecting defendants’ arguments that (1) the note is non‐negotiable because it imposes an  obligation  on  defendants,  in  addition  to  payment,  to  notify  lender  of  pre‐payment,  in violation  of N.J.S.A.  12A:3‐104(a);  (2)  the plaintiff was not  a holder  in due  course  because  it knew or should have known about irregularities in the closing documents.  The court finds no legal authority  in defendants’ argument  that  the note  is not a negotiable  instrument; and,  the circumstances  of  the  closing  do  not  imply  a  lack  of  good  faith  by  the  plaintiff  sufficient  to overcome holder in due course status. 

In  the Matter  of  Kemp/John  Kemp  v.  Countrywide Home  Loans,  Case No,  08‐18700‐JHW; Adversary Number 08‐2448, (Bankruptcy Ct. D. N.J.) DECIDED NOVEMBER 16, 2010 

Debtor filed an adversary action in bankruptcy court, challenging creditorʹs ability to enforce its obligation because (1) the promissory note executed by the debtor was not properly endorsed to the  creditor; and  (2)  the  creditor was not  in possession of  the note.   The  court expunged  the creditor’s secured claim.  The court cited the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code (“NJUCC”) to define both what constitutes a negotiable  instrument and what parties may exercise  rights under  the negotiable  instrument.   The promissory note  identified Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. as  the original  lender.   The note attached an unsigned allonge and was not  endorsed  to Bank of New York.  The loan was sold into a pool of loans with Bank of New York as Trustee and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as the master servicer. The pooling and servicing agreement  contained  terms  for  endorsement of  a note  entering  the pool.   The mortgage was assigned  to Bank of New York as Trustee.   The  court determined  that  the note, a negotiable instrument governed  the NJ UCC, was not properly endorsed, nor  in  the physical custody of the Bank of New York at the time the proof of claim was filed. Consequently, the creditor had no basis on which to enforce the note.  

Bank of New York, as Trustee  for Home Mortgage  Investment Trust 2004‐4 Mortgage Backed Notes, Series  2004‐4 v. Michael  J. Raftogianis,  418 N.J. Super.  323  (Ch. Div.  2010)., DECIDED June 29, 2010 

The  court  dismissed  the  foreclosure  complaint without  prejudice,  holding  that  the  plaintiff failed to prove it had physical possession of the note and was the holder as defined under the 

  4

New  Jersey Uniform Commercial Code,  at  the  time  the  foreclosure  complaint was  filed.    In refilling  the complaint,  the plaintiff must certify  the  facts as  to when  it  took possession of  the note  and  its  status  as  holder.    The  plaintiff  was  the  trustee  under  a  pooling  and  servicer agreement;  and,  the  pooling  and  servicing  agreement  contained  specific  instructions  for endorsement of the note.  The decision contains extensive commentary on the securitization of mortgages  and  the  requirements  for  establishing  a  party  as  holder  of  the  note.    The  court rejected the argument that the presence of MERS as a nominee caused a separation of the note and mortgage, rendering the mortgage unenforceable.  

U.S. Bank National Association v. Mark Williams, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion, A‐6185‐08T2, LEXIS 175, DECIDED August 25, 2010 

The  trial  court  denied  defendant’s motion  to  stay  redemption.    Defendant  alleged  he  was denied  a  meaningful  opportunity  to  participate  in  New  Jerseyʹs  residential  mortgage Foreclosure Mediation  Program  (FMP)  because  he was  unrepresented  and  not  assisted  by  a housing  counselor.    The  appellate  court  ruled  that  Defendant  did  have  an  opportunity  to participate  in mediation,  including  assistance  of  housing  counselor  as  outlined  by  the  FMP.  Defendant did not demonstrate the financial ability to qualify for a mortgage modification and was not approved.  The court noted that an agreement resulting in a loan modification is not a requirement of the FMP  if the borrower  is not qualified.   Participating  in mediation translates into a meaningful opportunity. 

U.S. Bank Natʹl Assʹn v. Berg, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion., A‐4696‐08T2, LEXIS 2413, DECIDED October 5, 2010  

Defendant filed a motion to vacate default, Final Judgment, Sheriffʹs Sale, to void deed and stay eviction  approximately  five months  after  the  Sheriffʹs  Sale.  Defendant  argued  that  Plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose because  it did not possess the note at the time the complaint was filed.  The lower court held that Plaintiff need only gain possession of the note before entry of Final Judgment and denied the motion.  The Appellate Division ruled that: (1) the Plaintiff had possession  of  the  note when  the  complaint was  filed;  (2)  the Defendant  acknowledged  the validity of the note/mortgage at various times; (3) Defendant did not move to vacate judgment sale within a reasonable time.  

Bank  of  America, NA,  as  successor  by merger  to  LaSalle  Bank, NA  as  Trustee  for WaMu Mortgage Pass‐Through Certificate  Series  2006  ‐AR11 Trust  v.  Janett Alvarado, Unpublished Trial Court Opinion, Docket: F‐47941‐08, DECIDED January 7, 2011  

The  court  granted  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  rejecting  the  defendant’s argument that the plaintiff cannot enforce the note because the note was lost prior to its transfer 

  5

to plaintiff.   The  court  found  that  common  law principles of unjust  enrichment preclude  the borrower  from  receiving  the windfall  that would  be  created  by  a  failure  to  deem  the  note enforceable.    The  original  note was  certified  as  lost  by  the  original  lender.  Also,  the  pass‐through trust was intended to include acquisition of Defendantʹs note; and, Bank of America, as successor has  the right  to enforce  the obligation represented by  the Lost Note.   Also, Bank of America is the assignee of the rights possessed by Washington Mutual, and the common law of assignments is broad enough to encompass the circumstances set forth in this case. 

Allen v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 629 F.3d. 364 (2011) DECIDED January 12, 2011 

Plaintiff  filed  a  class  action  lawsuit  against multiple  parties  alleging  violation  of  15  U.S.C. §1692f(1)  because  the  servicer’s  attorney  sent  the  borrower’s  attorney  a  payoff  letter which contained allegedly excessive fees  in connection with the foreclosure of her home. The district court  dismissed  the  complaint  holding  that  communication  from  a  debt  collector  to  a consumerʹs  attorney  should  be  analyzed  under  the  standard  of  a  competent  attorney,  and because  a  competent  attorney  would  have  recognized  the  charges  as  being  excessive,  the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Third Circuit reversed the decision finding that §1692f  (1) was a strict  liability statute which did not depend upon  the nature of  the recipient, and  that  the  letter  to  the consumerʹs attorney constituted an  indirect communication with  the consumer herself. 

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee v. Wilson, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion Docket Number A‐1384‐09T1, Decided January 19, 2011 

Appellate  Division  reversed  summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  foreclosing  plaintiff.  The Appellate Division found the affidavits submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment failed  to establish  the criteria for  the admission of business records as exceptions  to the  hearsay  rule;  the  affidavits  failed  to  attach  the  computer  printouts  in  support  of  the affidavit;  and,  the party  executing  the  affidavit was  employed by  a  company  other  than  the servicer, but signed under corporate authority, as an officer of the plaintiff. 

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee  for  JP Morgan Acquisition Corp. 2006‐FRE2, Asset Backed Pass‐Through Certificates, Series 2006‐FRE2 v. Arthur Spencer, et.al, Docket No. BER‐10591‐10, Unpublished Trial Court Opinion, DECIDED March 22, 2011 

The  court  dismissed  plaintiff’s  foreclosure  complaint  on  defendant’s  motion  for  summary judgment  because  the  plaintiff  failed  to  prove  it  had  physical  possession  of  the  note  and standing  to  pursue  the  foreclosure  under  the  requirements  of  the  New  Jersey  Uniform Commercial Code; failed to present a prima facie case with evidence from a competent witness; and,  the  Defendant  raised  defenses  which  would  have  required  further  exploration.    The 

  6

property was destroyed by fire and the proper application of insurance proceeds was disputed between the parties, although the default of the mortgage was not in dispute.  

Wells  Fargo  Bank, N.A.,  as  Trustee  v.  Sandra A.  Ford,  ___ N.J.  Super  ___  (App. Div.  2011) Docket No: A‐3627‐06T1, Approved for Publication; DECIDED January 28, 2011 

The Appellate Division  reversed  the  trial  court’s grant of  summary  judgment  in  favor of  the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the foreclosure action and whether  the  plaintiff was  the  holder,  as well  as  the  holder  in  due  course.    The  Appellate Division found that the documents relied on in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment were not properly authenticated and did not support  the grant of summary  judgment.    If properly authenticated,  the documents presented may support summary  judgment.   Once  the plaintiff presents adequate evidence that it is the holder, the question of whether it is the holder in due course, and therefore not subject to certain defenses pertaining to origination, can be addressed.  

U.S.  Bank  v.  Gleason,  Unpublished  Trial  Court  Opinion,  Docket  No:  F  ‐5319‐08,  Passaic County; DECIDED March 15, 2011 

The  trial  court  dismissed  the  foreclosure  because  the  plaintiff  failed  to  prove  standing,  as defined  in the New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code, at trial.   The plaintiff did not present a witness  qualified  to  testify  as  to whether  the  loan was  properly  secured  into  the  trust,  in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, by delivery of possession of the  note.   Nor  could  the witness  explain why  documents,  specifically  a  series  of  executed assignments, contradicted the documents previously presented to the Court. The contradictory assignments  raised questions about  the chain of  title.   Given  the  inadequacy of  the evidence, despite the existence of an undisputed default, the complaint was dismissed.   

 The Bank of New York Mellon‐F/K/A The Bank of New York Trustee Under The Pooling and Servicing Agreement  Series  2004‐24 CB  v. George C. Elghossain,  __ N.J.  Super  ___  (Ch. Div. 2010) Docket No: F‐13402‐10, Decided December  23,  2010; Approved  for Publication April  4, 2011 (J. Berman)‐‐DECIDED  

The Court dismissed the foreclosure complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Fair  Foreclosure  Act’s  requirements  pertaining  to  the  pre‐foreclosure  notice  of  intention  to foreclose.    The  Court  viewed  the  statute  as  requiring  strict  compliance with  its  provisions.  Specifically, court found that the notice sent by the plaintiff’s servicer did not comply with the statute because  it  listed only  the servicer and  the servicer’s address, omitting  the name of  the lender and the lender’s address.   The court pondered the question of whether the lender must 

  7

also be the party to mail the notice, but concluded that the issue of who may mail the notice was not before the court.   

 

US Bank NA,  as Trustee  v. Guillaume, Unpublished Appellate Division Opinion, A‐0376‐10T3 DECIDED April 20, 2011  

The Appellate Division upheld  the  trial courtʹs denial of application  to vacate default judgment.   The  defendants  alleged  that  they  had  a meritorious  defense  because  the plaintiff  violated  the  Fair  Foreclosure Act,  specifically;  the NOI  listed  the  servicerʹs address and not the lenderʹs address.  The Appellate Division setout N.J.S.A. 2A:50‐56c, to wit,  the FFA notice  (NOI)  requires “[t]he name and address of  the  lender and  the telephone number of a representative . . . ”,  but stated, ʺ[t]he NOI satisfied the purpose of  the FFA because ASC  (the  servicer)  is  the appropriate party  for  the Guillaumes  to contact to cure their default.”  

 

Thank you for logging in – the webinar will begin shortly.s o t y

•The Honorable Margaret M  McVeigh  Presiding Judge of the Chancery •The Honorable Margaret M. McVeigh, Presiding Judge of the Chancery Court for the County of Passaic

•Kevin M. Wolfe, Esquire, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the Kevin M. Wolfe, Esquire, Assistant Director, Administrative Office of the Courts for the Civil Practice Division

•Rosemarie Diamond, Esquire, Phelan Hallinan & Schmiegq g

•Bruce Levitt, Esquire, Levitt & Slafkes, P.C.

1 All Attendee phone lines are muted1. All Attendee phone lines are muted. 2. Questions may be submitted

Via Chat on the right hand side of your screen. Questions will be answered periodically during theQuestions will be answered periodically during the presentation

Note: Attendees with dial up connections will see a slower response.

3 See your3. See your messages here

1. Type your1. Type your question here. 2. Send

NJICLE PRESENTS: MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE UPDATE

A NJICLE Webinar

Topics to be Coveredp

Mortgage Mediation ProgramMortgage Mediation ProgramAppointment of Special Master: Order to Show Cause, Administrative Order and Amendment to Cause, Administrative Order and Amendment to Court Rules of 12/20/10Seeking Stays of Sheriff’s SalesSeeking Stays of Sheriff s SalesThe New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness ActOffice of Foreclosure UpdatesOffice of Foreclosure UpdatesCase Law Updates (available on request)

Mortgage Mediationg g

Overview and Updatesp- Where to get the forms?- Recommendations for Preparation

Perspectives on the Program- Perspective of the Judiciary- Perspective of the Administrative Office- Perspective of Lender’s Counsel- Perspective of Borrower’s Counsel

Court’s Response to Servicer D t ti IDocumentation IssuesOn December 20, 2010, the following actions were taken:, , gThe Supreme Court adopted emergency foreclosure rules

to Court Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2, requiring fil ffid i f d diliattorneys to file affidavits of due diligence;

Mary C. Jacobson, P. J. Ch., for Mercer County, issued an Order to Show Cause directed to six lender-servicers in Order to Show Cause directed to six lender servicers in response to servicer documentation issues widely reported in the media.

Glenn A. Grant, Acting Administrative Director of the Courts, issued an Administrative Order directed to twenty-four other lender-plaintiffs.twenty four other lender plaintiffs.

O M h 29 2011 J d J b d d On March 29, 2011, Judge Jacobson entered an order approving the Recommended Stipulation submitted by the Court’s appointed counsel, Edward Dauber, by the Court s appointed counsel, Edward Dauber, Esquire. The order includes appointment of a Special Master.

From February 1, 2011 to February 28, 2011, a public comment period was opened with respect to the emergent rule amendment. The Court’s response is anticipated in early May of 2011is anticipated in early May of 2011.

Please record this code for your MCLE forms:page@59th

Seeking Stays of Sheriff’s Salesg y

Forms Available on Judicial Website and at local Forms Available on Judicial Website and at local courthouse for use by counsel and pro se defendants

Recommendations for seeking a stay:-Has the defendant exhausted his statutory Has the defendant exhausted his statutory

adjournments?- What is the basis for the request for the stay?What is the basis for the request for the stay?

The New Jersey Foreclosure Fairness Act (“NJFFA”)( NJFFA )

The NJFFA was enacted on January 17, 2010, The NJFFA was enacted on January 17, 2010, amending the Mortgage Stabilization and Relief Act passed in 2009.p

Relevant Provisions:(1) Notices to Municipalities( ) N M p(2) Maintenance of Abandoned Properties(3) Tenants’ Rights under Anti-Eviction Act(3) Tenants Rights under Anti Eviction Act(4) Notice of Right to opt in to Stay of Foreclosure

Updates from the Office of Foreclosurep

- Affidavit/ Certification of Due DiligenceAffidavit/ Certification of Due Diligence- Staffing

Expedited (Substantial) Commercial Mortgage - Expedited (Substantial) Commercial Mortgage Foreclosure

JEFIS - Foreclosure

JEFIS – ForeclosureJEFIS Foreclosure- Electronic filing and electronic case jackets

Public Access- Public Access- Foreclosure Auto Storage

Superior Court Clerk Docket (ACMS)- Data Entry Responsibilities

The webinar has ended.

The program handbook, relevant CLE forms and additional materials for this program can be additional materials for this program can be accessed at: njicle.com/webinar

Please hang up your telephone now.