SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4566-17T4

JOAN MARIE HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE and 

CALIBER HOME LOANS,

Defendants-Respondents.

_______________________________

Argued telephonically May 13, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Rose.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Somerset County, Docket No. C012005-18.

Joan Marie Hoffman, appellant, argued the cause pro 

se. 

Robert T. Yusko argued the cause for respondent

Caliber Home Loans (Perkins Coie LLP, attorneys; 

Robert T. Yusko, on the brief).

Eva K. Carey argued the cause for respondent J.P. 

Morgan Chase Bank (Bertone Piccini, LLP, attorneys; 

Eva K. Carey, of counsel and on the brief).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

June 5, 2019
2

A-4566-17T4

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff appeals from two orders: an April 30, 2018 order dismissing the 

amended complaint against defendant Caliber Home Loans (Caliber); and a June 

8, 2018 order dismissing the complaint against defendant JPMorgan Chase 

Bank, N.A. (Chase), improperly pled as J.P. Morgan Chase. Judge Margaret 

Goodzeit entered the orders and rendered comprehensive and thorough opinions. 

We affirm. 

Almost eleven years ago, a bank instituted a residential foreclosure 

complaint against plaintiff, who immediately filed an answer contesting the 

bank's allegations. In November 2009, the bank obtained final judgment, which 

the court amended. The Sheriff then scheduled the sale of the property. 

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 petition, which stayed the sale. The 

bankruptcy court dismissed the petition in October 2016, and although the 

Sheriff re-listed the sale, plaintiff stayed it again by filing a Chapter 7 petition. 

The bankruptcy court lifted the stay, refusing to stay the sale any further, despite 

multiple applications by plaintiff. 1 Plaintiff filed this complaint in January 

2018, and the Sheriff sale of the property occurred in June 2018. 

 

1

 Plaintiff filed at least three other bankruptcy petitions, seeking further stays 

of the sale. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions and denied each of her 

requests to stay the sale of the property. 
3

A-4566-17T4

In this complaint, plaintiff alleged she proposed to redeem the property in 

March 2010, Chase failed to respond, Caliber became the servicer of the loan in 

July 2015, and Caliber provided a pay-off figure to plaintiff in November 2017. 

The judge entered the orders under review dismissing the complaint under Rule

4:6-2(e), the entire controversy doctrine (ECD), res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. 

On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred by dismissing the complaint by 

relying on the ECD. Indeed, her merits brief focuses solely on the ECD, 

although at oral argument before us, she contended that the judge erroneously 

relied on the other bases for dismissing this case. Plaintiff urges us to reverse 

the orders and award her damages.

We conclude that plaintiff's contentions are without sufficient merit to 

warrant attention in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We reach that 

conclusion even considering plaintiff's new arguments on appeal, on the record 

that she expanded without court order. We affirm substantially for the reasons 

expressed by Judge Goodzeit. 

Affirmed