SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1811-15T2

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE

FOR GSAMP 2006-FM1,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MEHMET SARHAN, MRS. MEHMET

SARHAN, HIS WIFE; MUHARREN

SARHAN,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________________________

Submitted January 9, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, 

Docket No. F-19530-08.

Mehmet Sarhan, appellant pro se.

Reed Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent 

(Henry F. Reichner, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Mehmet 

Sarhan appeals the November 23, 2015 final judgment. After a 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

March 31, 2017
2 A-1811-15T2

review of the contentions in light of the applicable legal 

principles, we affirm. 

We discern the following facts and procedural history from 

the record on appeal. On January 12, 2006, defendant executed a 

$382,500 Promissory Note to FGC Commercial Mortgage Finance dba 

Fremont Mortgage (Fremont Mortgage) and a mortgage in the same 

amount to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) 

to secure the note.

On January 20, 2006, Fremont Mortgage assigned the mortgage 

to Fremont Savings and Loan. The mortgage was recorded with the 

Morris County Clerk on January 25. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company 

thereafter acquired the loan from Fremont Savings and Loan to 

include it in a pool of mortgage loans to be deposited in the 

GSAMP 2006-FM1 trust (the Trust). On May 20, 2008, MERS assigned 

the mortgage to plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as 

trustee for the Trust. Defendant defaulted on the loan on February 

1, 2008. A Notice of Intent to Foreclose (NOI) was sent on March 

24, 2008; the NOI was later amended to identify plaintiff as the 

lender. 

Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint on May 21, 2008. 

Defendant filed an answer in September 2008. However the answer 

was stricken in November 2009; the judge noted there were no 

meritorious defenses. The case was subsequently dismissed without 
3 A-1811-15T2

prejudice for failure to prosecute in September 2013, but 

reinstated in August 2014. 

On September 9, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended foreclosure 

complaint. Defendant filed an answer and affirmative defenses. 

Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer was granted on 

June 22, 2015 by Judge Stephan P. Hansbury. In his statement of 

reasons accompanying the order, Judge Hansbury found that 

plaintiff had physical possession of the note and mortgage prior 

to filing the foreclosure complaint, and therefore, plaintiff had 

standing to bring a foreclosure action. The judge concluded that 

there were no material issues of fact with respect to plaintiff's 

right to foreclose and transferred the matter to the Foreclosure 

Unit of the Superior Court of New Jersey to proceed as an 

uncontested matter. Final judgment was entered on November 23, 

2015. 

On appeal, defendant raises the following issues:

I. The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that 

an unjust result should be avoided.

II. N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -20 is in place to 

protect consumers from the wrongful acts of 

the mortgage institutions. 

III. The plaintiff must meet specific criteria 

to recover on a promissary [sic] note.

IV. The court has held that the lender must 

be the owner of the note. 
4 A-1811-15T2

V. Federal district courts have dismissed 

foreclosure cases for lack of standing.

VI. The moving party must prove that it is, 

in fact, a damaged party.

VII. The court has set specific rules that 

were put in place especially in light of the 

irregular practices of the banking industry.

We have considered defendant's contentions in light of the 

record and applicable legal principles and conclude they are 

without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief comments.

In order to have standing, the "party seeking to foreclose a 

mortgage must own or control the underlying debt." Wells Fargo 

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

(quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis, 418 N.J. Super. 323, 327-28 

(Ch. Div. 2010)). Standing is conferred by "either possession of 

the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the 

original complaint. . . ." Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Angeles, 

428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) (citing Deutsche Bank 

Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 216 (App. Div. 

2011)). Without ownership or control, a plaintiff cannot "proceed 

with the foreclosure action and the complaint must be dismissed." 

Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 418 N.J. Super. at 597 (quoting Bank of 

N.Y., supra, 418 N.J. Super. at 357-59).
5 A-1811-15T2

Here, we are satisfied that plaintiff established a prima 

facie case for foreclosure. Plaintiff clearly demonstrated its 

standing to foreclose on the property based on the assignment of 

the mortgage from MERS on May 20, 2008, which predated the May 21, 

2008 filing of the foreclosure complaint. Upon that assignment 

and underlying transfer of possession, plaintiff became the holder 

of the instrument. Defendant argues plaintiff cannot substantiate

its possession of the note but provides no documentary evidence 

in support of his argument. Therefore, defendant has not 

established that he is entitled to relief from the final judgment.

Affirmed.