SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1806-17T2

RUI BRANCO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

OMAR CASTILLO,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted December 4, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino and Haas.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Union County, Docket No. DC-015191-17.

Omar Castillo, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.1

PER CURIAM

 

1 Respondent did file a four-page letter on December 28, 2017 responding to a 

finality inquiry from the clerk's office.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 11, 2018
2

A-1806-17T2

Defendant Omar Castillo appeals the trial court's December 7, 2017 order 

of ejectment directing him to vacate the subject premises on William Street in 

Elizabeth. We affirm.

Defendant purchased the property in March 2007 with mortgage 

financing. He defaulted in his mortgage payments and consequently a 

foreclosure action was filed against him in August 2008 under Docket No. F31106-08. Defendant failed to contest the foreclosure complaint. Meanwhile, 

the mortgage was assigned several times to successors of the original mortgagee. 

The final assignment was to an entity known as "PROF-2013-53 LEGAL TITLE 

TRUST, BY U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS LEGAL TITLE 

TRUSTEE" ("the Bank"). The assignment was duly recorded on December 2, 

2015 in the Union County Registrar's Office. 

Final judgment in the foreclosure action was entered against defendant on 

July 29, 2016. Defendant's motion to vacate the judgment for alleged lack of 

standing of the Bank was denied. Defendant attempted to appeal the judgment 

but his appeal (A-3994-16) was dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

After several adjournments, the premises were sold to the Bank at a 

sheriff's sale on March 8, 2017. The Bank assigned its bid to another entity, 

"USROF III Legal Title Trust 2015-1 by US Bank National Association, as 
3

A-1806-17T2

Legal Title Trustee." The Sheriff's deed reflecting that conveyance was duly 

recorded on May 23, 2017. Defendant moved unsuccessfully to vacate the 

sheriff's sale.

On August 2, 2017, Rui Branco bought the property at an auction. The 

corresponding deed was dated September 28, 2017 and duly recorded in Union 

County. 

After defendant refused to leave the premises, Branco brought the present 

ejectment action against him in the Special Civil Part. Defendant opposed the 

ejectment, claiming Branco is not the rightful owner and that there were 

improprieties in the foreclosure and the chain of title.

After considering the parties' arguments and the evidence, including a 

copy of Branco's recorded deed, Judge James P. Wilson granted Branco's 

application to eject defendant. The judge set forth his reasons in an oral decision 

in the presence of the parties on December 7, 2017. 

In his present appeal, defendant persists in arguing that Branco lacks title 

to the premises and that the chain of title and validity of the foreclosure process 

is not adequately documented. He further argues the judge's oral statement of 

reasons is insufficient.
4

A-1806-17T2

We affirm the order of ejectment, as defendant has shown no merit to his 

contentions. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only a few comments. 

Defendant has not shown that he timely paid the balance due on his 

mortgage loan. The final judgment of foreclosure, which was not disturbed on 

appeal, is binding upon him. See McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment 

Comm'n, 177 N.J. 364, 395 (2003) (concerning the preclusive effects of the 

doctrine of res judicata).

We are unpersuaded by defendant's claims of irregularities in the deed and 

the sheriff's sale. We refer in this regard to the sound analysis set forth in Judge 

Joseph P. Perfilio's January 10, 2017 written statement of reasons, denying 

defendant's motion to enjoin the sheriff's sale and finding a valid chain of title. 

Defendant's reliance on the Bank's cancellation of a writ of possession it 

obtained in its favor before the property was sold at auction to Branco in August 

2017 is unavailing. It was unnecessary for the Bank to follow through on 

seeking possession through that writ, once Branco had become the new owner. 

Lastly, Judge Wilson's oral decision was more than ample under Rule 1:7-4(a). 

Affirmed.