SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 2935
- 16T2 HSBC BANK U.S., NATIONAL ASSOC IATION as trustee for WELLS FARGO ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, MORTGAGE ASSET BACKED PASS - THROUGH CERTIFICATE SERIES 2007
- AR9 , Plaintiff
- Respondent,

v. JULIO WEXLER, Defendant
- Appellant,
and MRS. JULIO WEXLER, WIFE OF JULIO WEXLER, WELLS FARGO BANK , NA; TD BANK, NA , and RHINA WEXLER, Defendants.

_____________________________________

Submitted May 1, 2018

– Decided July 31, 2018 Before Judges Sumners and Moynihan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. F - 026003
- 12. Julio Wexler, appellant pro se .

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court .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 - 2935
- 16T2 Reed Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Henry F. Reichner, of counsel and on the brief ; David G. Murphy, on the brief ).
PER CURIAM In this residential mortgage foreclosure action, defendant
J ulio Wexler appeals a February 3, 2017 order denying his objection to entry of final judgment of foreclosure in favor of HSBC Bank U.S., National Association as t rustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation , Mortgage Asset - Backed Pass
- Through Certif icate S eries 2007
- AR9 (HSBC) . We affirm.
On September 18, 2007 , Wexler executed a mortgage to Wells Fargo Bank , N.A. to secure a promissory note for $ 716,704 payable
to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to purchase a home in Edgewater Park . The mortgage was properly recorded . Due to Wexler's payment default on February 1, 201 1 , foreclosure proceedings were subsequently initiated on November 9, 2012 by HSBC , which had been assigned the mortgage . After the trial had been adjourned on several occasions at the request of
Wexler's counsel , the parties and Chancery Judge Robert P. Contillo
executed a consent order entered on December 30, 2013 , which provided that the answer filed by Wexler wa s "deemed non
- contesting
and that [ the ] matter shall be transferred to the Foreclosure Unit to proceed as an uncontested foreclosure . " The order also stated3 A - 2935
- 16T2

that HS B C "shall not apply for Final Judgement prior to expiration
of 150 days from the date of this Order." Wexler, no longer represente d by counsel , tried to prevent

an unfiled motion to enter foreclos ure by filing an order to show

cause that sought to vac a te the consent order ; alleging the
settlement was entered in bad faith because he was under duress

or coerced into signing the order w hen his additional adjournment request was denied. Judge Contillo denied the request on May 9,
2014 , as well a s Wexler's motion for reconsideration on September 11, 2014 . Three months later, in accordance with the consent order,
HS B C moved for entry of final judgement . Wexler objected , arguing
the consent order was signed under psychological and economic pressure. He also challenged HS B C's ability to foreclose , contending : the Notice of Intent to Foreclose was defective and violated the Fair Foreclosur e Act of 1995; the promissory note was
robo
- signed; HS B C was without standing

– it failed to show that it had possession of the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed, it failed to show that its assignment was authenticated,
and the true owne r of the note had not been identified; H S B C violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and there was imp roper service of defe ndant R h ina Wexler .4 A - 2935
- 16T2

J udge Contillo denied Wexler's objections with entry of an
order and a letter decision on February 3, 2017 . T he judge stated
that Wexler's numerous objections were without merit because under
Rule 4:64
- 1(d) (3) , 1 object ion to entry of foreclosure is limited solely to the amount due and Wexler f a iled to contest the amount
due with any specificity . The judge further found Wexler did not present any credible evidence to contradict any information contained in HSBC 's motion . And , as to allegations of coercion
or duress in agreeing to the consent order , the judge indicated
he had previously determined that there was no merit to the allegations . 2 On March 10, J udge Contillo denied Wexler's motion for reconsideration; rejecting challenges, raised for the first time, regarding the amount due as untimely. Entry of an uncontested final judgment of foreclosure and a w rit of execution was entered
on March 31. On app eal, Wexler argues:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A [] HARMLESS ERROR BELOW BECAUSE IT [S] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WER [ E ] UNSUPPORTED AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPETENT, RELEVANT, CREDIBLE AND

1 Miscited as Rule 4:64
- 1(d)(1)(A) ; paragraph (d) was amended effective September 1, 2014.

2 Denial of motion was not included in Wexler's Notice of Appeal.5 A - 2935
- 16T2 UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT . POINT II
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A [] HARMLESS ERROR BELOW BECAUSE IT [S] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WER [E ] UNSUPPORTED AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPETENT, RELEVANT, CREDIBLE AND UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AND APPROVED A CONSENT ORDER MADE IN BAD FAITH TO COVER UP PLAINTIFF'S VIOLATIONS OF CASE LAW, RULES AND STATUTES . POINT III
THE TRIAL COU RT COMMITTED A [] HA R MLESS ERROR BELOW BECAUSE IT [S] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WER [E] UNSUPPORTED AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPETENT, RELEVANT, CREDIBLE AND UNCHALLENGED EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT AND IMPROPERLY DENIED THE DEFENDANT/APPEL LANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN A CIVIL TRIAL . Considering Wexler's arguments in light of the record and applicable legal principles, we conclude that they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R.
2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E). We aff irm substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Contillo 's well
- reasoned oral decision. We further add that Wexler's arguments that were not raised before the judge will not be considered on appeal because they do not involve jurisdictional or public interest concerns . Zaman v.6 A - 2935
- 16T2

Felton , 219 N.J. 199, 226
- 27 (2014) (quoting Nieder v. Royal Indem.
Ins. Co. , 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)). Affirmed.