THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BASTAR, A-2773-14T3. (2016)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20160613248
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2016
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendants Josef A. Bastar and Janet M. Bastar appeal from the Chancery Division's Final Judgment of Foreclosure and portions of an earlier order denying their cross-motion for summary judgment, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing defendants' counterclaim. On appeal, defendants contend that it was error for the court to rely upon our holding in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v.
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION PER CURIAM . Defendants Josef A. Bastar and Janet M. Bastar appeal from the Chancery Division's Final Judgment of Foreclosure and portions of an earlier order denying their cross-motion for summary judgment, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing defendants' counterclaim. On appeal, defendants contend that it was error for the court to rely upon our holding in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. ..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendants Josef A. Bastar and Janet M. Bastar appeal from the Chancery Division's Final Judgment of Foreclosure and portions of an earlier order denying their cross-motion for summary judgment, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing defendants' counterclaim.
On appeal, defendants contend that it was error for the court to rely upon our holding in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J.Super. 315 (App. Div. 2012), in determining plaintiff had standing to bring the action. According to defendants, application of the standard for proof of standing established in Angeles "drastically lowered the Mitchell1 standing requirement of possession of both the note and the mortgage to a far more permissive requirement of possession of either the note or an assignment of the mortgage." Defendants argue that "[f]or the past three years [the court's holding in Angeles] has misguided trial courts regarding the issue of a foreclosure plaintiff establishing standing."
We disagree with defendants' characterization of our earlier decisions and find their arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Robert P. Contillo in his thoughtful and comprehensive oral decision.
Affirmed.
FootNotes
1. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J.Super. 214 (App. Div. 2011).
Source: Leagle
