SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0008-16T3

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

AS TRUSTEE FOR CREDIT SUISSE 

FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES

CORP., CSMC MORTGAGE-BACKED

PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES,

SERIES 2006-6,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTINE COPPOLA, MR. 

COPPOLA, HUSBAND OF CHRISTINE

COPPOLA, ROBERT JOHN COPPOLA,

MRS. ROBERT JOHN COPPOLA, HIS 

WIFE,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________

Submitted October 10, 2017 – Decided 

Before Judges Ostrer and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. 

F-020791-13.

Andy Winchell, attorney for appellants.

Reed Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent 

(Henry F. Reichner, of counsel and on the 

brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 8, 2017
2 A-0008-16T3

PER CURIAM

Defendants, Robert and Christine Coppola, appeal from a July 

19, 2016 judgment of foreclosure. Defendants contend the trial 

court erred in finding plaintiff had standing to foreclose. 

Because plaintiff is a non-holder in possession of the note with 

the rights of the holder, we affirm.

Defendant Christine Coppola borrowed $371,000 from NJ Lenders 

Corp. (NJ Lenders). In 2006, the loan was secured by a mortgage

executed by Christine and Richard Coppola naming the Mortgage 

Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee and 

nominee for NJ Lenders. On May 12, 2006, NJ Lenders indorsed the 

note and delivered it to Wells Fargo Bank, NA (Wells Fargo),

plaintiff's document custodian and loan servicer. On or about 

March 20, 2012, the loan was sold and the mortgage was assigned 

to plaintiff. 

Defendants defaulted on the note, and, in January 2013,

plaintiff commenced a foreclosure action. A bench trial was 

conducted on May 20, 2015. A Wells Fargo loan verification analyst 

testified regarding the documents sought to be admitted into 

evidence. The judge found the analyst's testimony sufficient to 

admit the documents and determined plaintiff had standing to 

foreclose. The judge determined plaintiff had standing because 
3 A-0008-16T3

there was an assignment of the mortgage before the complaint was 

filed. This appeal followed.

Defendants argue the trial judge erred in finding plaintiff 

had standing to foreclose because it did not own the underlying 

debt. We disagree.

We accord "substantial deference" to the trial judge's 

determination and review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 

318 (App. Div. 2012) (citing U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Guillaume, 

209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012)). We will find a judge abused his or her 

discretion only "when a decision is 'made without rational 

explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or 

rested on an impermissible basis.'" U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc., supra,

209 N.J. at 467-68 (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 

N.J. 88, 123 (2007)). 

A party attempting to foreclose a mortgage "must own or 

control the underlying debt." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. 

Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 222 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 597 (App. Div.

2011)). Parties who can enforce such a negotiable instrument, 

like a note, include "[1] the holder of the instrument, [2] a 

nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a 

holder, or [3] a person not in possession of the instrument who 
4 A-0008-16T3

is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to [N.J.S.A.] 12A:3-

309 or subsection d of [N.J.S.A.] 12A:3-418." N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301. 

Regarding the first category, a person to whom the instrument 

is not payable may become the holder if there is a negotiation. 

Ford, supra, 418 N.J. Super. at 598 (citing N.J.S.A. 12A:3-201(a)). 

In order for a negotiation to occur, there must be a transfer of 

possession and an indorsement by the holder. Mitchell, supra, 422 

N.J. Super. at 223. An indorsement requires "a signature, other 

than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone 

or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the 

purpose of negotiating the instrument." Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A.

12A:3-204(a)). Without an indorsement, standing may be 

insufficient to satisfy this category. Ford, supra, 418 N.J. 

Super. at 598.

To fall within the second category, one must show the transfer 

of rights to the note. Id. at 599. Transfer occurs "when it is 

delivered by a person other than its issuer for the purpose of 

giving to the person receiving delivery the right to enforce the 

instrument." N.J.S.A. 12A:3-203(a). This transfer "vests in the 

transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument"

whether or not a negotiation also occurs. N.J.S.A. 12A:3-203(b).

If the transferee is not a holder because the 

transferor did not indorse, the transferee is 

nevertheless a person entitled to enforce the 
5 A-0008-16T3

instrument under section 3-301 if the 

transferor was a holder at the time of 

transfer. Although the transferee is not a 

holder, under subsection (b) the transferee 

obtained the rights of the transferor as 

holder.

[UCC Cmt. 2 to N.J.S.A. 12A:3-203.]

Documents establishing transfer, including an assignment of 

a mortgage, must be properly authenticated with certifications 

based on personal knowledge, as required by Rule 1:6-6. Ford, 

supra, 418 N.J. Super. at 599-600.

Here, the record establishes plaintiff is a non-holder in 

possession of the note with the rights of the holder. MERS was 

the mortgagee as nominee for NJ Lenders, its successors and 

assigns. MERS delivered the original note to Wells Fargo as 

plaintiff's custodian and servicer and the mortgage was assigned 

prior to the filing of the complaint. 

Based upon the record before us, we see no reason to disturb 

the trial judge's findings.

Affirmed.