SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3327-15T2

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, L.L.C.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MAXWELL J. BROTHERS,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

BARBARA J. BROTHERS, HIS WIFE,

AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS

NOMINEE FOR QUICKEN LOANS, INC.,

Defendants.

________________________________

Submitted June 1, 2017 – Decided 

Before Judges O'Connor and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Mercer County, Docket No. 

F-29885-09.

Maxwell J. Brothers, appellant pro se.

Stern, Lavinthal & Frankenberg, and Sandelands 

Eyet, attorneys for respondent (Robert D. 

Bailey, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

July 10, 2017
2 A-3327-15T2

PER CURIAM

Defendant Maxwell Brothers appeals from a March 16, 2016 

order denying his emergent application to stay the sheriff's sale 

of property in Ewing Township. We affirm. 

Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C.

1 filed a foreclosure 

complaint against defendants Maxwell Brothers, his wife, Barbara 

Brothers, and Quicken Loans on June 8, 2009. No defendant filed

an answer, and default was entered May 18, 2011. Defendant, 

Maxwell Brothers, filed an emergent application for a stay on 

March 16, 2016, the day of the scheduled sheriff's sale. The 

trial court heard argument and considered defendant's emergent 

application that day. Defendant argued he was not served with the 

foreclosure complaint. The judge denied the application, relying 

on the court's JEFIS2 record indicating defendant was served with 

the complaint in 2009. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court's order should 

be reversed because he was never served with the foreclosure 

complaint. We disagree. 

 

1 The original plaintiff in this matter was BAC Home Loans 

Servicing, L.P. Nationstar Mortgage, L.L.C. was substituted as 

plaintiff by the court in an order dated January 10, 2014.

2 JEFIS stands for Judiciary Electronic Filing and Imaging 

System. Defendant asserts he was not shown the JEFIS file in 

court but looked at it a few days later.
3 A-3327-15T2

Rule 4:4-3(a) provides,

If personal service cannot be effected after 

a reasonable and good faith attempt, . . .

service may be made by mailing a copy of the 

summons and complaint by registered or 

certified mail, return receipt requested, to 

the usual place of abode of the defendant or 

a person authorized by rule of law to accept 

service for the defendant or, with postal 

instructions to deliver to addressee only, to 

defendant's place of business or employment. 

If the addressee refuses to claim or accept 

delivery of registered or certified mail, 

service may be made by ordinary mail addressed 

to the defendant's usual place of abode. The 

party making service may, at the party's 

option, make service simultaneously by 

registered or certified mail and ordinary 

mail, and if the addressee refuses to claim 

or accept delivery of registered mail and if 

the ordinary mailing is not returned, the 

simultaneous mailing shall constitute 

effective service. 

The trial judge addressed the issue of service when denying

the emergent application. During the hearing, defendant testified 

the property was his residence, but he was never served with the 

foreclosure complaint. 

A review of the transcript reveals the judge referred to the 

court's JEFIS file and discovered plaintiff provided proof to the 

court it served defendant by both certified and regular mail. 

Plaintiff provided certifications, which stated service had been 

completed by certified and regular mail as confirmed by the United 

States Postal Service, on December 28, 2009. Plaintiff also 
4 A-3327-15T2

included the appropriate electronic confirmation the certified 

mail was "unclaimed" and the regular mail was not returned. The 

court was satisfied plaintiff established proper service under 

Rule 4:4-3.

Moreover, the trial judge advised defendant he had recourse 

to seek two statutory adjournments pursuant to the sheriff's 

directive about the sale, which defendant had not attempted to do. 

We discern no error in the trial judge's finding defendant was 

properly served with the complaint. Defendant's chief argument 

is the court erred in relying upon the allegedly false submissions

of plaintiff regarding service but provides no demonstration of 

error beyond his dissatisfaction with the outcome. 

To the extent defendant makes any other arguments, we find 

they lack merit and do not warrant discussion in a written opinion. 

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

Affirmed.