SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 1666

- 20 MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P. , Plain tiff

- Respondent,

v. EILEEN BRYLINSKI and FRANK BRYLINSKI , Defendants

- Appellants , and MR. BRYLINSKI, unk nown spouse of EILEEN BRYLINSKI, Defendant.

____________________________

Submitted October 5, 2021

– Decided October 14 , 202 1 Before Judges Fisher and Smith. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. F

- 00 7226

- 17. Eileen Brylinski and Frank Brylinski, appellants pro se.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough 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

- 3.2 A

- 1666

- 20 Akerman , LLP, attorneys for respondent (Scott B. Brenner and Erica R. S. Goldman, on the brief).
PER CURIAM In 2016, plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, L.P. , received from Bank of America, N.A., the assignment of a thirty

- year mortgage executed by defendant s Eileen and Frank Brylinski in 2007 against their Metuchen home. In 2017, MTGLQ commenced this foreclosure action and moved for summary judgment when defendants filed an answer. In moving for summary judgment, MTGLQ asserted that a notice of intent to foreclose was sent by Bank of America to
defen dants in accordance with the Fair Foreclosure Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:50

- 56. The trial judge determined that MTGLQ submitted sufficient evidence to show the notice of intent was sent and granted MTGLQ's summary judgment motion

. F inal judgment of foreclosure was later entered and the property sold to MTGLQ at a sheriff's sale

. Defendants appealed, arguing there was a lack of competent proof that
Bank of America sent the notice of intent prior to MTGLQ's filing of the foreclosure complaint . For reasons expressed in an unpublished opinion, we found a genuine question of fact a bout the notice of intent

. To be specific, w e held that the issue was not whether the notice of intent failed to conform to the
Fair Foreclosure Act but "whether [ it ] was sent," explaining t hat if someone "can3 A

- 1666

- 20

lay an adequate foundation " on this question, " then the judgment need not be disturbed." MTGLQ Investors , LP v. Brylinski , No. A

- 2409

- 18 (App. Div. July 14, 2020) (slip op. at 17). Following our d ecision , the chancery judge conducted a n evidentiary hearing . MTGLQ called a witness who testified about whether Bank of America
sent a notice of intent to defendants. Defendant Frank Brylinski cross - examined the witness but neither he nor his wife testified and they did not call any witness es to rebut the testimony of MTGLQ's witness. At the end of the hearing, the judge rendered oral findings in support of his conclusion that the witness was credible and that the notice of intent was sent. Two o rders were entered on February 9, 2021

. O ne order memorialized th e factual determination about the notice of intent and concluded there was no basis to disturb the final judgment
of foreclosure

. 1 T he other order memorialized the judge's denial of defendants' motion to compel MTGLQ to compensate them for the full value of the foreclosed property. Defendants appeal, arguing:
I. THE REVERSAL AND REMAND OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NO LONGER AN

1 This order appended a written opinion that further ampli fied the judge's oral decision.4 A

- 1666

- 20 OPTION WITHOUT SETTING ASIDE THE SHERIFF'S SALE.
II. P LAINTIFF FAILED TO LAY A SUFFICIENT FOUNDATION TO ESTABLISH THE [NOTICE OF INTENT'S] ADMISSIBILITY UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED, AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION, DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR COMPENSATION.
Because our standard of review requires that we defer to judge

- made findings when supported, as here, by credible evidence in the record, see Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv. Ins. Co. , 65 N.J. 474 , 4 8 4 (19 74 ), and becau se defendants could not conceivably be entitled to any relief as argued in Point III absent an outright reversal of the judgment of foreclosure and dismissal of the complaint, we find insufficient merit in defendants' arguments to warrant further discussio n in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). Affirmed.