SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A- 2107-18T2

U.S. BANK NA, AS TRUSTEE

ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS

OF THE J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE

TRUST 2006-S2 MORTGAGE 

PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOHN BRENNAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

Submitted February 10, 2020 – Decided

Before Judge Sabatino and Natali.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Sussex County, Docket No. 

F-014535-17.

John Brennan, appellant pro se.

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (Nelson Diaz, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

February 26, 2020
A- 2107-18T2 2

Defendant, John Brennan, appeals a final judgment of foreclosure issued 

against him on November 27, 2018, in favor of plaintiff, U.S. Bank N.A., as 

Trustee, on behalf of the Holders of the J.P. Morgan Trust 2006-S2 Mortgage 

Pass-Through Certificates ("U.S. Bank"). We affirm.

Defendant entered into a residential mortgage on January 23, 2006, in 

the amount of $156,000. The note was originally payable to Weichert 

Financial Services Company. The note was thereafter assigned and eventually 

was acquired by U.S. Bank. 

Defendant does not dispute that he has been in default in payment on the 

mortgage since September 2016. Consequently, U.S. Bank filed the present 

mortgage foreclosure action against him.

In support of its case, U.S. Bank presented a certification from Cristina 

Diaz de Leon, which established plaintiff's right to foreclose. As attested to by 

her, she had personal knowledge of the relevant records. The bank moved for 

summary judgment, which defendant opposed on several grounds.

On April 4, 2018, Judge Lorraine M. Augostini entered summary 

judgment in favor of the bank. The judge attached a detailed statement of 

reasons, explaining why the bank had established its entitlement to summary 

judgment, and rejecting the various opposing arguments presented. 
A- 2107-18T2 3

Defendant then moved to vacate the summary judgment order and made 

his present argument that the supporting certification was inadequate and that 

an affidavit was required instead. Judge Augostini rejected that argument and 

denied defendant's vacatur motion on November 15, 2018, again issuing a 

detailed statement of reasons.

U.S. Bank then obtained a final judgment of foreclosure from Judge 

Robert J. Brennan. The property was scheduled for a sheriff's sale, which was 

conducted on January 30, 2019, at which U.S. Bank was the successful bidder. 

Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the sale. Judge Augostini denied the 

motion to vacate on April 24, 2019, once again issuing a written statement of 

reasons rejecting defendant's arguments. This appeal ensued. 

Defendant contends that in a Notice to the Bar dated April 30, 2019, the 

Supreme Court directed, allegedly for the first time, that a certification could 

be used in lieu of an affidavit by plaintiffs in residential mortgage cases to 

establish a right to foreclosure. We disagree with defendant's interpretation of 

the significance of the Notice to the Bar. The Notice merely confirmed, in the 

context of residential foreclosure actions, a long-established principle set forth 

more generally in Rule 1:4-4(b) (establishing that in lieu of an affidavit, oath 

or verification, an affiant may submit a certification stating that his or her 

statements are true and realizing that he or she is subject to punishment if his 
A- 2107-18T2 4

or her statements are willfully false). See also State v. Angelo's Motor Sales, 

Inc., 125 N.J. Super. 200, 207 (App. Div. 1973), aff'd, 65 N.J. 154 (1974). 

"Certification is only another way of swearing or affirming." Ibid. "It is 

nothing in itself except as a perceptible manifestation of the [author's] intent to 

verify the statement certified." Ibid. 

Defendant has not persuasively shown the substance of plaintiff's 

supporting certifications is insufficient to establish its standing to bring this 

foreclosure case. The certifications establish that plaintiff has possession of 

the note in this case, as well as the validity of the related assignment. See

Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. 

Div. 2012). There is no legal or equitable reason to vacate the judgment or set 

aside the sheriff's sale.

All other arguments presented by defendant lack sufficient merit to 

warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.