SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4811-15T1

GOSHEN MORTGAGE, LLC,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

ROSA WILLIAMS, NEW CENTURY 

FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHILTON 

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL and 

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,

Defendants.

_________________________________

Submitted July 5, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket 

No. F-031723-14.

Daniel Williams, appellant pro se.

Friedman Vartolo, LLP, attorneys for 

respondent (Adam J. Friedman, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 23, 2017
2 A-4811-15T1

PER CURIAM

Defendant Daniel Williams appeals from a final judgment of 

foreclosure contending plaintiff Goshen Mortgage, LLC failed to 

establish its predecessor in this action, Bayview Loan 

Servicing, LLC, possessed the note and mortgage when it filed

its foreclosure complaint. Because the record reveals 

plaintiff's predecessor established its standing by actual 

possession of the note and mortgage and a duly recorded 

assignment of mortgage pre-dating its complaint, we affirm. 

Defendant borrowed $345,100 from Nationwide Equities 

Corporation in March 2008, executing a thirty-year note and a 

non-purchase money mortgage on his home. The loan went into 

default eight months later after defendant and his wife suffered 

serious health issues. As reflected in the 2014 foreclosure 

complaint and in counsel for Bayview's certification of diligent 

inquiry pursuant to R. 4:64-1(a)(2), the note and mortgage were 

assigned first to Bank of America, N.A., then to the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development and then to the original 

plaintiff, Bayview. While the matter was pending in the 

Chancery court, Bayview transferred physical possession of the 

note and mortgage to Goshen and recorded an assignment of 

mortgage documenting the transfer. The Chancery judge amended 

the caption accordingly.
3 A-4811-15T1

Following discovery, Goshen moved for summary judgment. 

Defendant opposed, arguing that certain signatures on the 

assignments of mortgage were forged. He submitted two almost 

identical reports from a purported handwriting expert, each 

concluding, without explanation, that the signatures were 

forged.

After hearing oral argument, Judge McVeigh entered summary 

judgment for plaintiff, addressing and rejecting each of 

defendant's arguments in opposition to the motion in a 

comprehensive written opinion. After a detailed review of the 

documents in the record, she found Goshen established its own 

and its predecessor Bayview's standing by virtue of a 

certification by its servicer's employee made on personal 

knowledge in accordance with R. 1:6-6. See Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 597-600 (App. Div. 2011).

Based on a review of Goshen's records, the employee was 

able to attest to Bayview's acquisition of the original note and 

mortgage six months before the filing of the complaint and its

transfer of those original documents to Goshen during the 

pendency of the litigation, which continued to hold them at the 

time of the motion. As actual holders of the mortgage, 

plaintiff and its predecessor easily established standing to 
4 A-4811-15T1

pursue its foreclosure. See Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418 

N.J. Super. 323, 330-31 (Ch. Div. 2010).

Judge McVeigh was also satisfied that Goshen established it 

and its predecessor's standing through the chain of recorded 

assignments. Because Bayview had a recorded assignment of 

mortgage predating the complaint, it had standing to initiate 

the foreclosure. See Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas v. 

Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012). Goshen's 

physical possession of the note and a recorded assignment of 

mortgage likewise provided it standing to pursue the complaint 

to judgment. See Ibid. Judge McVeigh rejected the proffered 

expert reports as net opinions and questioned whether even a 

forgery in the recorded assignments would affect plaintiff's 

standing in light of its possession of the original note and 

mortgage.

Defendant appeals, reprising the standing arguments he made 

to the trial court. Having considered defendant's arguments and 

reviewed the record on the motion, we affirm, substantially for 

the reasons expressed by Judge McVeigh in her opinion of 

December 4, 2015. Because we agree defendant presented no 

competent proof of forgery, we need not consider whether summary 

judgment could have been entered had defendant raised a genuine 
5 A-4811-15T1

issue as to the authenticity of the signatures on the 

assignments.

Affirmed.