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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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, 2018
2

A-5299-16T3

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Sussex County, Docket No. F019621-16.

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 defendant'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 

mortgage, which was duly recorded. Defendant defaulted in 2016.

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

intention to foreclose and later, in July 2016, a foreclosure complaint. Defendant 

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

Plaintiff moved to strike defendant's responsive pleading, providing, among 

other things, clear evidence of the legitimacy and 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. Defendant 

opposed the application, claiming "no recollection of receipt of any Notice of 

Intention to Foreclose in this matter." As memorialized in his July 25, 2017 

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

rebut plaintiff'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 

AND 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 MODIFICATION 

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 UNSUPPORTIVE ENOUGH TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT.
4

A-5299-16T3

V. DEFENDANTS IN FORECLOSURE ACTION 

HAVE A RIGHT TO CHALLENGE MORTGAGE 

ASSIGNMENTS (Not Raised Below).

VI. TRIAL COURT CLEARLY ABUSED ITS 

DISCRETION BY DISREGARDING MERITORIOUS 

DEFENSES; THEREBY UNJUST, OPPRESSIVE OR 

INEQUITABLE RESULTS WERE SUBSTANTIATED.

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

written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.