SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0948-17T4

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DELROY CAMPBELL, his/her 

heirs, devisees, and personal 

representatives, and his, her, their 

or any of their successors in right, 

title and interest, 

Defendant-Appellant,

and

VIVIANNE CAMPBELL, his/her heirs, 

devisees, and personal representatives, 

and his, her, their or any of their successors 

in right, title and interest,

Defendant.

__________________________________

Submitted September 13, 2018 - Decided 

Before Judges Accurso and Vernoia.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

September 27, 2018
2

A-0948-17T4

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket No. F000794-10.

Delroy Campbell, appellant pro se.

Reed Smith, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Henry F. 

Reichner, of counsel and on the brief; Siobhan A. 

Nolan, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Delroy Campbell appeals from the denial of his motion to 

vacate a final judgment of foreclosure, contending plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A. never established its ownership of the note he and his wife gave to MLD 

Mortgage, Inc. or the right to foreclose the mortgage securing it. Because the 

record reveals Wells established its standing by actual possession of the note 

pre-dating its complaint, although its assignment of mortgage was not recorded

until three weeks after its filing, we affirm. See Deutsche Bank Trust Co. 

Americas v. Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012).

Defendant and his wife borrowed $404,985 from MLD Mortgage, Inc. in 

April 2008, evidenced by a thirty-year note secured by the non-purchase 

money mortgage he and his wife gave to MLD's nominee, Mortgage Electronic 

Registration Systems, Inc. The loan went into default in August 2009. Four

months later, MERS assigned the mortgage to Wells, which filed a foreclosure 
3

A-0948-17T4

complaint ten days later. The assignment was not recorded, however, until 

three weeks after the complaint was filed.

Defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. After defendant filed for 

bankruptcy while Wells' motion for summary judgment was pending, the court 

dismissed the matter without prejudice in March 2011. Following resolution 

of the bankruptcy, the court granted Wells' motion to reinstate the foreclosure 

action in January 2013.

Wells thereafter moved again for summary judgment, supporting its 

motion with a certification of a vice president of the bank with personal 

knowledge as to its records, who averred that Wells was in possession of the 

note defendant gave to MLD, specifically endorsed to Wells' order, which it 

received prior to the filing of the complaint. Defendant opposed the motion, 

which the court granted in August 2016. Defendant did not oppose Wells' 

motion for final judgment, which was entered in April 2017. 

Defendant did not appeal the final judgment, and the property was sold 

at sheriff's sale in July 2017. Defendant thereafter filed a motion under R.

4:50-1 to vacate the final judgment, the writ of execution and the sheriff's sale, 

contending Wells had never established its ownership of the note and right to 

foreclose the mortgage. Judge LaConte denied the motion, finding Wells had 
4

A-0948-17T4

established its standing to foreclose the mortgage on the motion for summary 

judgment by virtue of a certification of its 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).

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 

LaConte in his opinion from the bench on September 18, 2017. Because 

Wells had possession of the note endorsed to its order prior to the filing of the 

complaint, it had standing to initiate the foreclosure. See Angeles, 428 N.J. 

Super. at 318. Its continued possession of the note and its subsequently

recorded assignment of mortgage likewise provided it standing to pursue the 

complaint to judgment. 

Affirmed.