SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 5299

- 16T3

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT II INC., PRIME MORTGAGE TRUST, CERTIFICATES SERIES 2005

- 4,

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

RYUNG HEE CHO,

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

MR. CHO, Husband of Ryung Hee Cho; GREAT LOCATION NEW YORK INC., NEWBANK,

Defendants.

_________________ ______________________

Submitted October 2, 2018

– Decided

Before Judges Fisher and Suter.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

October 16, 201 82 A

- 5299

- 16T3 On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Sussex County, Docket No. F

019621

- 16.

Sukjin Henry Cho, attorney for appellant.

Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent (Henry F. Reichner, of counsel; Laura K. Conroy, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Ryung Hee Cho appeals a final judgment of foreclosure as well

as earlier interlocutory orders. One of the earlier orders deemed defenda nt' s

answer and counterclaim noncontesting

, and the other dismissed defendant's

objections to the application for final judgment.

There is no dispute that defendant took out a loan to purchase the property

in question in 2005; the loan was secured by defendant's execution of a

mo rtgage, which was duly recorded. Defendant defaulted in 2016.

Plaintiff, as the assignee of the note and mortgage, served a notice of

intention t o fo reclose and later, in July 2016, a foreclosure compl aint

. Defendant

filed a timely answer with numerous affirmative defenses and a counterclaim.

Plaintiff moved to strike defendant's responsive p leadin g, provid ing, among

other things, clear evidence of the legitimacy a nd propriety of the assignment.

Defendant filed no opposition. The judge granted plaintiff's motion for the

reasons expressed in an order and written opinion of November 4, 2016

.3 A

- 5299

- 16T3

In January 2017, plaintiff applied for entry of final judgment. Defenda nt

o pposed the application, claiming "no recollection of receipt of any Notice of

Intention to For eclose in this matter

. " As memorialized in his July 25, 2017

order, the judge found this objection meritless a nd irrelevant because it did not

rebut p laintiff's assertions about the amount due. Final judgment was entered

two days later.

Defendant appeals the final judgment, as well as the earlier interlocutory

orders , arguing :

I. PLAINTIFF HAS NO STANDING: SUBJECT NOTE IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE NOTE A ND MORTGAGE WERE SPLIT AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE ALONE IS A NULLITY.

II. DEFECTIVE NOTICES OF INTENTION TO FORECLOSE AND PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO SERVE THE NOTICES OF INTENTION TO FORECLOSE.

III. HOMEOWNER[] S [WERE GIVEN] NO OPPORTUNITY FOR LOAN MODIF ICATION UNDER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S MAKE HOME AFFORDABLE PROGRAM BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT (Not Raised Below ).

IV. AMOUNT DUE SCHEDULE FOR FINAL JUDGMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUPPOR

TIVE ENOUGH TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT.4 A

- 5299

- 16T3 V. DEFENDANTS IN FORECLOSURE ACTION HAV E A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MORTGA GE ASSIGNMENTS (Not Raised Below ).

VI. TRIAL COURT CLEARLY ABUSE D ITS DISCRETION BY DISREGARDING MERITORIOUS DEFENSES; THEREBY UNJUST, OPPRESSIVE OR INEQUITABLE RESULTS WERE SUBSTAN

TIATED.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a

written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E)

.

Affirmed.