SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 3366

- 18T2 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA TIONAL ASSOCIATION , as Trustee for Certificate H olders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I LL C , Asset

- Backed Certificates, Series 2007

- AC6 , Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. PAUL HAUKE,
Defendant

- Appellant,
and MRS. PAUL HAUKE, his wife, and SOPHIE HENRY,
Defendants.

___________________________

Submitted March 25, 2020

– Decided April 23, 2020 Before Judges Mayer and Enright

.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court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

- 3366

- 18T2 On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. F

- 0 15317

- 17.
Paul R. Hauke , appellant pro se. Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP , attorneys for respondent ( Ben Z ev Raindorf and Robert D. Bailey , on the brief).
PER CURIAM Defendant Paul Hauke appeals from the following: a March 16, 2018 order denying his motion to vacate default e ntered in favor of plaintiff Wells Fargo , National Association, as Trustee for Certificate H olders of Bear Stearns Asset
Backed Securities I LLC , Asset

- Backed Certificates, Series 2007

- AC6 (Bank);
orders dated June 8, 2018 , August 3, 2018, and October 12, 2018 denying reconsideration of the March 16, 2018 order; a January 2 5, 2019 order overruling defendant's objection to the Bank's motion for Final Judgment ; a February 15, 2019 order denying reconsideration of the January 25, 2019 order;
and a February 27, 2019 Final Judgment. We affirm all orders on appeal. The facts are undisputed. In June 2007, d efendant executed a note in the amount of $550,000. The note was secured by a mortgage on defendant's property in Point Pleasant. The Bank bec ame an assignee of the note and mortgage through a valid assignment

. D efendant defaulted on payments due
under the note as of June 1, 200 8.3 A

- 3366

- 18T2

The Bank mailed the required notice of intent to foreclose to defendant at the mortgaged premises and a post offi ce box provided by defendant more than thirty days prior to filing a foreclosure action

. On June 21, 2017, the Bank filed its foreclosure complaint.
The Bank claimed d efendant evaded attempts to personally serve the foreclosure complaint

. The Bank then served the foreclosure complaint on defendant by regular and certified mail directed to the mortgaged premises and
the post office box used by defendant. The Bank filed a certification of diligent inquiry with the trial court, detailing the efforts made t o personally serve the complaint upon defendant and the mailing of the documents to defendant by regular and certified mail. Because defendant failed to timely answer or respond to the Bank's foreclosure complaint, on January 23, 2018, the court entered
d efault. On February 12, 2 018 , defendant moved to vacate default. 1 In a March 16, 2018 order, the judge denied defendant's motion. The judge then denied
defendant's three subsequent motions seeking reconsideration of the March 16,
2018 order.

1 The Bank sent the notice of default by regular mail to th e mortgaged premises where defendant resides

.4 A

- 3366

- 18T2

In Octo ber 2 01 8 , t he Bank applied for entry of final judgment. Defendant objected to the amount the B ank claimed to be due on the note

. In a January 25, 2019 order, the judge rejected defendant's objection to the amount due and owing to the Bank and returned th e matter as uncontested to the Office of Foreclosure for entry of a final judgment. Defendant sought reconsideration of the January 25, 2019 order, which the judge denied. A Final Judgment was entered on February 27, 2019. Defendant appealed. Upon receipt of defendant's notice of appeal, on May 6, 2019, Judge Francis R. Hodgson, Jr. issued a thirty

- page, single

- spaced amplification of his prior oral decisions pursuant to Rule 2:5

- 1(b). The following are defendant's argumen ts on appeal:
POINT I
THE TRIAL COURT DID ERR AND ABUSE IT [] S DISCRETION BY DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO VACATE THE JANUARY 2, 2018 DEFAULT. i. The court improperly denied [d]efendant's [m]otion [] to vacate the January 2, 2018 default.
ii. Defendant

- Appellant did demonstrate good cause under R[.] 4:43 to justify vacating the default in this matter and reverse the Entry of Final Judgment

. iii. Defendant

- Appellant has complied with R[.] 4:43 by full y articulating legally recognized defenses to the5 A

- 3366

- 18T2 und erlying foreclosure action as required to justify vacating such an improperly entered default.
P OINT II HONORABLE JUDGE HODGSON, JR. ERRED IN REGARD TO HIS "TILA" [ 2 ] RULING. DEFENDANT / APPELLANT'S "TILA" ARGUMENT ESTABLISHES NOT ONLY A VALID COUNTERCLAIM BUT A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE.
POINT III
DEFENDANT / APPELLANT DOES NOT NEED MERITORIOUS DEFENSES, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS THEM, TO REVERSE A DEFAULT WHEN DUE PROCESS IN SERVICE HAS NOT BEEN EFFECTED.
POINT IV
THE LEGAL STANDARD ON A MOTION FOR RECO NSIDERATION AS PER R[.] 4:49

- 2 HAS BEEN MET.
POINT V
JUDGE AMPLIFICATION IMPROPER AS IT IS FILED LATE AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH [R.] 2:5

- 1(b) AND IS NOT JUST AN AMPLIFICATION BUT IS A WRITTEN OPINION STATING FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE RECORD. IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.

2 Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 to 1667f.6 A

- 3366

- 18T2

POINT VI
LACHES IS A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE. Having reviewed the record, we affirm all orders on appeal substantially for the reasons expressed in the thorough and well

- stated May 6, 2019 written amplification provided by Judge Francis R. Hodgson, Jr. , as well as his reasons placed on the record on M arch 13, 2018 ; June 8, 201 8; August 3, 201 8; October 12, 2018 ; January 25, 2019 ; and February 15, 2019. We add only the following

comments.
Rule 2:5

- 1(b) allows a trial judge to supplement a prior opinion , providing fifteen days from receipt of a party's notice of appeal to " file and mail to the parties an amplification of a prior statement, opinion or memorandum made either in writing or orally and recorded pursuant to R [ule] 1:2

- 2. " Defendant contends the amplification was untimely because it was ser ve d thirteen days beyond the time period set forth in Rule 2:5

- 1(b). He also argues the judge's amplification "stat[ed] facts and conclusions that are not part of the record." We reject these arguments. T here is nothing in the Court R ule s , or case law, that prevents this court from considering a trial judge's amplifica tion filed beyond the fifteen

- day timeframe. Here, defendant suffered n o prejudice as a result of the brief delay in service of the judge's amplification because defendant7 A

- 3366

- 18T2

received the l etter several months prior to filing his merits brief. In addition, defendant failed to identify any portion of the judge's amplification that was
inconsistent with the prior oral rulings. The remainder of defendant's arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E).
Af firmed.