SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4700-16T4

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LEON COOPER,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Submitted September 13, 2018 – Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Vernoia.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Burlington County, Docket No. F037958-14.

Leon Cooper, appellant pro se. 

Phelan, Hallinan, Diamond & Jones, PC, attorneys for 

respondent (Brian J. Yoder, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this foreclosure matter, defendant Leon Cooper appeals from an order 

denying the stay of an eviction from a residential property he used as collateral 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

April 15, 2019
2

A-4700-16T4

in a mortgage. Before we address appellant's legal arguments, we will 

summarize the procedural journey of this case.

I

On March 28, 2008, Leon Cooper and Sharon Cooper1executed a 

promissory note to Village Capital & Investment LLC (Village Capital) to 

secure a loan in the amount of $255,981.00, payable on April 1, 2038. An 

allonge2attached to the promissory note stated: "without recourse pay to the 

order of: [(plaintiff),] CitiMortgage, Inc." To secure this loan, the Coopers

executed a purchase money mortgage on a property located in the Township of 

Mount Holly in Burlington County to the Mortgage Electronic Registration 

Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Village Capital. The mortgage was 

recorded on April 4, 2008, with the Clerk of Burlington County.

The mortgage contained an acceleration clause causing all payments to 

become immediately due and payable in the event of default. On September 1, 

2011, defendant failed to make the monthly payment and consequently defaulted 

 

1 Sharon Cooper is not a party in this appeal.

2 When the indorsements on a bill or promissory note have filled all the blank 

space, it is customary to annex a strip of paper, called an "allonge," to receive 

the further indorsements. https://thelawdictionary.org/allonge/ (last visited 

April 3, 2019).
3

A-4700-16T4

on the mortgage loan obligation, triggering the acceleration clause. On April 

30, 2012, MERS, as nominee for Village Capital, assigned the mortgage to 

plaintiff, CitiMortgage. The assignment was recorded on June 1, 2012, with the 

Clerk of Burlington County. 

On October 15, 2013, appellant filed a Quiet Title action against 

CitiMortgage, alleging, inter alia, that: (1) the title to the property was clouded; 

(2) there was no transfer of ownership between Village Capital and 

CitiMortgage; (3) CitiMortgage lacked standing because it was not a real party 

in interest as it was only a loan servicer and debt collector; (4) the debt had been 

discharged in full; and (5) there had been an invalid assignment of the deed of 

trust.

CitiMortgage filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal 

of appellant's Quiet Title action as a matter of law. On April 30, 2014, Judge 

Karen L. Suter, the General Equity Judge in the Burlington County vicinage at 

the time, granted CitiMortgage's motion and dismissed appellant's Quiet Title 

complaint with prejudice. Judge Suter provided the following explanation in 

support of her ruling:

[Defendants did] not deny executing the note and 

mortgage in favor of [Village Capital] on March 28, 

2008. There is an allonge showing the note was 

specifically indorsed to [CitiMortgage]. 
4

A-4700-16T4

[CitiMortgage] certifies it holds the original note. With 

respect to the mortgage, this was assigned to 

[CitiMortgage] on April 30, 2012. . . . This mortgage 

is held by [CitiMortgage]. They hold the original. 

Thus, [CitiMortgage] has standing to enforce the note 

and mortgage as the note was specifically indorsed and 

it has possession of the original note and mortgage. 

N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301. [CitiMortgage] then is a holder 

who can enforce the note. . . . 

At its heart, [defendant's] complaint seeks to quiet title

. . . . it is clear that there is no cloud to title. While 

[defendant] seeks to adjudicate the issue of 

[CitiMortgage's] right to pursue the mortgage and note 

. . . it is clear that [CitiMortgage] is the holder of the 

instrument which is specially endorsed in its favor.

On September 11, 2014, CitiMortgage filed a foreclosure action against 

the Coopers. The Coopers filed an answer and counterclaim against 

CitiMortgage, which Judge Suter dismissed with prejudice on December 29, 

2014. On April 24, 2015, Judge Suter denied the Coopers' motion for 

reconsideration. The matter proceeded from this point forward as an 

uncontested foreclosure action. Thereafter, the Coopers filed a motion for 

summary judgment seeking to dismiss with prejudice the foreclosure action. 

Judge Suter denied this motion on June 4, 2015. Undaunted, the Coopers 

continued to file a series of meritless motions challenging CitiMortgage's 

standing to enforce the note and mortgage, and challenging the assignment of 

the mortgage. In denying each of these motions, Judge Suter explained that the 
5

A-4700-16T4

doctrine of res judicata barred defendants from continuing to challenge the final 

judgment granted to CitiMortgage by way of summary judgment.

On July 29, 2015, Judge Innes, P.J.Ch.3, entered final judgment against 

the Coopers in the amount of $333,422.75. Judge Innes ordered the mortgaged 

property to be sold to satisfy the amount owed by the Coopers and entered a 

Writ of Execution directing the Burlington County Sheriff's Office to conduct a 

sale of the mortgaged property.

On September 14, 2015, Judge Suter denied the Coopers' motion to vacate 

the final judgment of foreclosure. On December 28, 2015, Judge Paula T. Dow 

denied the Coopers' motion to dismiss CitiMortgage's complaint. Judge Dow 

also barred defendants from "filing further motions seeking to challenge 

[CitiMortgage's] standing to foreclose and/or the validity of the instant 

foreclosure action[,]" determining that "it appears that [defendant's] continual 

filing of meritless motions appears to be simply a tactic to delay foreclosure 

proceedings."

On March 17, 2016, CitiMortgage sent defendants a notice of Sheriff's 

Sale, which was scheduled for April 7, 2016, and subsequently rescheduled for 

July 7, 2016. Defendants thereafter unsuccessfully attempted to remove the case 

 

3 Presiding Judge of Chancery Division. See R. 1:37-3.
6

A-4700-16T4

to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District 

Court remanded the matter to the Superior Court on April 20, 2016. Judge Dow 

denied defendants' emergent motion to stay the Sheriff's Sale on June 30, 2016.

In a Sheriff's Sale held on July 7, 2016, CitiMortgage acquired title to the 

property for $100. Insolently disregarding Judge Dow's previous admonition, 

defendants filed another motion to vacate the final judgment, and a motion to 

stay the Sheriff's Sale that, by that time, had already been completed. Judge 

Dow denied these motions on July 22, 2016. The Sheriff's Deed was issued to 

CitiMortgage and recorded on February 22, 2017.

On March 3, 2017, CitiMortgage filed a Writ of Possession. Defendant 

filed an emergent application to stay the eviction. On April 25, 2017, Judge 

Dow denied the application without prejudice because, at that time, the eviction 

had not yet been scheduled. The Burlington County Sheriff scheduled the 

eviction for July 11, 2017. Defendant filed a motion to stay the eviction, which 

Judge Dow denied on July 5, 2017. On July 7, 2017, defendant filed an 

Application for Permission to File an Emergent Motion with this court, seeking 

a stay of the eviction, which our colleague Judge Joseph L. Yannotti denied for 

the following reasons:

We have considered the application in light of the 

criteria in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-34 
7

A-4700-16T4

(1982), and conclude that defendants have failed to 

establish a likelihood of success on the merits of an 

appeal from the trial court's order of July 5, 2017, which 

denied defendants' motion to stay the eviction. 

Defendants also have not shown that they would be 

irreparably harmed if the relief they seek is denied. We 

note that the property was sold at a sheriff's sale held 

on July 7, 2016, and defendants have had about a year 

to make plans to relocate.

Once again, showing an utter disregard for the rule of law, defendants

thereafter filed a second Application for Permission to File an Emergent Motion, 

which was promptly denied by our colleague Judge Marie P. Simonelli, because 

"[t]he relief sought in this application has already been denied by orders entered 

by this court and the Supreme Court on July 7, 2017."

Defendants were finally evicted from the property on July 11, 2017. On 

July 7, 2017, the same date that Judge Yannotti denied defendant's application 

for emergent relief, appellant Leon Cooper filed a notice of appeal challenging 

Judge Dow's July 5, 2017 order denying the motion to stay the eviction.

II

Against this procedural history, appellant raises the following arguments 

which we recite verbatim in the interest of clarity.

I. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants['] 

Order To Stay Eviction[,] Allowing The [Respondents] 

To Take The [Appellants'] Home And Land By Way Of 
8

A-4700-16T4

[Extortion] Causing [Irreparable] Harm To The 

Appellant And [Their] Family.

II. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction[,] The [Respondent] Has Not 

[Suffered] Any Damages Or Loss For The Award 

Granted Because Citimortgage[,] Inc. Breached [Its] 

Duty Of Care To Appellants As An Invited Guest To 

Their Home.

III. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction [Because The] Fha Loan And 

Purchase Money Mortgage Are Not Mutually Exclusive 

Here The P.J. . . . Is [Representing] Fact 

Citimortgage[,] Inc. Breached Their Duty Of Care To 

Appellants As An Invited Guest To Their Home. 

IV. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction To Say That The 

[Respondent's] Equity Outweigh[s] The Appellants Is 

Outrageous [Appellants] Are Entitled To Recoupment 

3x The Amount Of The Final Judgment Amount Of 

$333,422.75 For The Lost Note Breached Their Duty 

Of Care To Appellants As An Invited Guest In Their 

Home. 

V. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction[,] Common Law Lien 

[Supersedes] Foreclosure Citimortgage, Inc. Breached 

Their Duty Of Care To Appellants As An Invited Guest 

To Their Home.

VI. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants['] 

Order To Stay Eviction[,] The Appellants Have Not 

Been Compensated For [Their] $260,000.00 Warranty 

Deed. [Appellants] Own The Land Fee Simple But 

Was Forced Off By Armed [Sheriff Officers]. 
9

A-4700-16T4

Citimortgage Inc. Breached [Its] Duty To Appellants 

As An Invited Guest To Their Home.

VII. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction [Because] The [Foreclosure] 

Complaint Should Have Been Dismissed Citimortgage 

Inc. Breached [Its] Duty Of Care To Appellants As An 

Invited Guest To Their Home.

VIII. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants 

Order To Stay Eviction Violating The Appellants Right 

To [Statutory] Rights To [Redemption] [Its] Duty Of 

Care To Appellants As An Invited Guest In Their 

Home.

IX. The Trial Court Erred In [Denying] Appellants['] 

Order To Stay Eviction Citimortgage Inc. Breached 

[Its] Duty Of Care To Appellants As An Invited Guest 

[In] Their Home.

Based on settled principles of law, we are satisfied appellant's challenge 

to Judge Dow's July 5, 2017 order is moot.

An issue is moot when this court's "decision sought in a matter, when 

rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." See

Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22 (App. 

Div. 2011); see also Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 251 (App. Div.

2005) (stating in the context of a landlord-tenant matter, "[o]rdinarily, where a 

tenant no longer resides in the property, an appeal challenging the propriety of 

an eviction is moot"). Here, appellant's notice of appeal specifically identifies 
10 A-4700-16T4

Judge Dow's July 5, 2017 order denying his application to stay the eviction, 

following the Sheriff's Sale of the mortgaged property. Appellant was evicted 

from this property on July 11, 2017. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as 

moot.