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
.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " 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.

July 10, 20172 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 foreclos ure
complaint against defendant s Maxwell Brothers , his wife , Barbara

Brothe rs, 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 JEFIS 2 record indicating defendant was served with
the complaint in 2009. This appeal followed

. On appeal, d efendant 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 ,

I f personal service cann ot 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 authorize d 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 m ay 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 acc ept 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 de fendant by both certified and regular mail.

Plaintiff provided certif ications, which stated service had been
completed by certified and regular mail as confirmed by the United

States Postal Service , on December 28, 2009 . Plaintiff also4 A

- 3327

- 15T2

included the appro priate electronic confirmation the certified

mail was "unclaimed" and the regular mail was not returned. T he

court was satisfied plaintiff established proper service under

Rule 4:4

- 3.
Moreover, the trial judge advised defendant he had recourse

to seek tw o statutor y adjournments pursuant to the s her iff's

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

W e discern no error in the trial judge's finding defendant was
properly served with the complaint. Defendant's chief argument

is the cou rt 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.