SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 1489
- 15T4

GDBT 1 TRUST 2011
- 1 , Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.
DENARD C. TRAPP , Defendant
- Appellant .

_______________________________

Submitted May 25, 2017
- Decided July 3, 2017 Before Judges O'Connor and Mawla . On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. F - 11243
- 13 . Denard C. Trapp, appellant pro se. Parker McCay P.A. , attorneys for respondent ( Gene Mariano, of counsel; Stacy L. Moore, Jr., on the brief ).
PER CUR IAM Defendant Denard C. Trapp appeals from a writ of p ossession entered on November 2, 2015, following entry of a final judgment
of foreclosure on September 22, 2014 , in favor of plaintiff GDBT NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court .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 - 1489
- 15T4

1 Trust 2011
- 1 . Defendant's appeal is without merit and out of time . For the reasons stated herein , the appeal is dismissed . The following facts are found in the record. Defendant is
the owner of a residential property located in Tinton Falls . On November 30, 2006, he executed a note with FGC Commercial Mortgage Finance, DBA Fremont Mortgage for the sum of $420,000. D efendant executed a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,

Inc. , as nominee for FGC Commercial Mortgage Finance, DBA Fremont Mortgage, w hich served as security for repayment of the debt . The mortgage was recorded on Decemb er 21, 2006 , and subsequently assigned on August 11, 2008 , to Southstar III , LLC . Southstar

III , LLC assigned the mortgage to SRP 2010

- 6, LLC on March 18, 2011, which a ssigned the mortgage to Goshen Mortgage , LLC on July 18, 2012 . T he mortgage was then assigned to plaintiff on March 13, 2013 . All assignments were duly recorded, including the assignment to plaintiff, which was recorded on April 4, 2013. On March 1, 201 2, d efendant defaulted on the note and since
has made no payment s. A notice of intent to foreclose was sent to defendant by SRP 2010
- 6 , LLC on April 24, 2012. After the final assignment , plaintiff recorded the mortgage , and filed a
foreclosure complaint on April 5, 2013. Defendant f iled an a nswer on June 5, 2013. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on October3 A - 1489
- 15T4

3, 2013 . The trial judge deemed the motion unopposed because
defendant 's cross - motion was not timely. On November 21, 2013, the trial court granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor and struck defendant's answer with prejudice. Thereafter, on April 30, 2014, defendant filed a c omplaint in
f ederal c ourt to "quiet title. " The District Court dismissed defendant's complaint, denied his motio n for reconsideration , and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On September 22, 2014 , a f inal j udgment of f oreclosure was entered in the amount of $386,301.73. The property was subsequently sold at Sheriff's sale on June 8, 2015 . The court issued a w rit of p ossession on November 2, 2015. On December 28, 2015, d efendant filed a n otice of a ppeal , which he later amended . Defendant twice sought to stay removal , which this court denied. The Supreme Court also denied a request to stay his removal. Defendant was removed from the property on April 13, 2016. Although defendant has appealed from the writ of possession,
he attacks the final judgment of foreclosure. Specifically, he challenges plaintiff's standing to fil e a foreclosure because plaintiff is not licensed or registered to do business in New Jersey; thus he claims plaintiff is not permitted to utilize the New Jersey courts. Also, defendant asserts plaintiff committed fraud upon the court , voiding the entry o f summary judgment in4 A - 1489
- 15T4

plaintiff's favor and the foreclosure judgment . Next, defendant argues the trial judge violated his due process rights when she did not consider his cross - motion and opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. He further claims the foreclosure action was invalid because his cross - motion asserted a meritorious defense, namely, the mortgage was a predatory loan . Lastly,
defendant asserts because the mortgage note is lost , plaintiff is not entitled to enforcement of the note because it has not established possession of the documents necessary to foreclose. In response, p laintiff argues defendant's claims lack merit
and none of the issues he raises were set forth in the n otice of

a ppeal . P laintiff contends defendant 's brief presents arguments pertaining to the 2013 entry of summary judgment, yet his appeal is limited to the w rit of possession . Plaintiff notes i f we reach the merits of defendant's claims, the trial judge appropriately exercised her discretio n by declining to consider defendant's late cross motion . Rule 2:5
- 1(f)(1) states: A notice of appeal to the Appellate Division may be in the form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the Courts as set forth in Appendix IV of these Rules.

. . . . The notice of appeal to the Appellate Division shall have annexed thereto a Case Information5 A - 1489
- 15T4 Statement as prescribed by subparagraph 2 of this rule. "While the rule does not in terms so provide, it is clear that it is only the judgments or orders or parts thereof designated in the notice of appeal which are subject to the appeal process and review." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules , c m t . 6.1 on R. 2:5
- 1(f)(1) (2017) (citing Sikes v. T wp. of Rockaway , 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465
- 66 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b. , 138 N.J. 41 (1994) , (rejecting review of the trial court's denial of a request for special interrogatories because the issue was not listed in the notice of appeal)). Also, for example, " if the notice designates only the order entered o n a motion for reconsideration, it is only that proceeding and not the order that generated the reconsideration motion that may be reviewed." Ibid . (citing W.H . Indus ., Inc. v. Fundicao Balancins, Ltd a , 397 N.J. Super. 455,
458
- 59 (App. Div. 2008) ) . Defe ndant's original and amended n otice of a ppeal state he challenges the Novemb er 2, 2015 w rit of p ossession, not the November 21, 2013 summary judgment order or the September 22, 2014 judgment of foreclosure . Conversely , d efendant's brief addresses the summary judgment order and the final judgment of foreclosure , not the w rit of p ossession. For these reasons , pursuant to Rule
2:5
- 1(f) (1) , we decline to review defendant's requests as they6 A - 1489
- 15T4

pertain to the summary judgment order or the foreclosure judg ment. More importantly, t he time to appeal both the entry of summary judgment and the foreclosure judgment has long passed. See R . 2:4
- 1 (a) . Lastly, we note a writ of possession is a means to enforce a judgment by granting a successful plaintiff posses sion of the property to satisfy its judgment , s ee Black's Law Dictionary 1750 ( 9 t h ed. 2009 ) . Defendant may not use an attack on the post
judgment writ of possession to have us review determinations he failed to timely challenge . Defendant's brief purports to have us "vacate . . . all judgments, " which is also time barred. R . 2:4
- 1 (a) (mandating appeals shall be filed within forty

- five days of entry of trial judgments or orders). The appeal is dismissed. R . 2:8
- 2 .