SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0237

- 17T2 U.S. BANK, N

. A

. , Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N

. A

. , Successor in Interest to LaSalle Bank N

. A

. , as Trustee, on Behalf of the WaMu Mortgage Pass

- Through Certificates, Series 2007

- HY3, Plaintiffs

- Respondents,

v. MICHAEL R. BELLO, his/her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives, and his, her, their or any of their successors in right, title and interest, Defendant

- Appellant,
and MRS. MICHAEL R. BELLO, wife of MICHAEL R. BELLO, BANK OF NEW JERSEY, STEVEN SEGALAS, ESQ., his/her heirs, d evisees, and personal representatives, and his, her, their or any of their successors in right, title and interest, and SMS FINANCIAL XXVII LLC, NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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

- 3.2 A

- 0237

- 17T2

Defendants.

________________________________

Submitted November 8, 2018

– Decided Before Judges Vernoia and Moynihan. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. F

026317

- 14. Ira J. Metrick, attorney for a ppellant

. Milstead & Associates, LLC, attorneys for r espondent (Joel H. Aronow, on the brief).
PER CURIAM In this foreclosure action, defendant Michael R. Bello appeals fro m : the Chancery Division's order granting summary judgment to Bank of America, NA ( BOA ) ; a final judgment of foreclosure entered after default was granted; and
the denial of his motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment

. Defendant reprises the arguments made to the trial court and contends
BOA 's motion for summary judgment should have been denied because of numerous standing issues: insufficient ev idence that BOA was the holder of the
not e at the time the complaint was fi led; the no te was not endorsed to BOA ; the certification supporting the motion for summary judgment was not based on personal knowledge, did not set forth the documents relied upon by the witness, February 7, 20193 A

- 0237

- 17T2

and did not establish that BOA was entitled to enforce the note under N.J.S.A.
12A:3

- 301. He further argues the trial court erred by concluding the assignments listed in public Security and Exchange Commission filings did not have to be listed in the complaint as required by Rule 4:64

- 1(b)(10) ; and the "sole assi gnment relied upon by [BOA] could not have assi gned the mortgage to [BOA]

. " We are unpersuaded by any of these arguments and affirm.
In a March 2006 refinance, defendant executed an adjustable rate note for $1,235,000 to Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. ( WaMu ) and granted the bank a first mortgage on a Forked River property which was recorded on April 7, 2006

. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA , (JPMorgan) purchased the loans and assets of Washington Mutual Bank (Washington Mutual) , formerly kno wn as WaMu , from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC )

– which was acting as the receiver for Washington Mutual

– in October 2008

. In May 2010, JPMorgan assigned defendant's mortgage to BOA , succes sor by merger to LaSalle Bank NA (LaSalle), as trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass

- Through Certifica tes Series
2007

- HY3 Trust (HY3 T rust) . T he assignment was recorded on May 14, 2010

. U.S. Bank, NA, was the last successor trustee of the HY3 T rust

. Defendant failed to make his monthly mortgage payments and the loan
entered into default on June 1, 2010. On June 2 6 , 2014 , BOA filed a foreclosure4 A

- 0237

- 17T2

complaint against defendant. In his contesting answer, defendant acknowledged he executed the note and mortgag e but d enied the loan was in default. In its September 1, 2016 motion to substitute plaint iff , grant summary judgment and strik e defendant's ans wer , plaintiff relied upon the certification of an employee of plaintiff's servicer and agent , Select Portfolio Servicing , Inc. (SPS), who certified that plaintiff was the holder of the note and was assigned the mortgage on May 3, 2010. 1 The employee attached c opies of the note, mortgage and assignment to her certification. The Chancery Division judge , in granting summary judg ment, striking defendant's answer and forwarding the case to the Office of Foreclosure to
p roceed as an uncontested matter , found: defendant did not dispute the validity of the note or mortg age ; the servicing company's employee's certification , and
the documents

– including the note, mortgage , assignment and NOI, all of which the judge found were business records

– established BOA 's standing; defendant had no standing to challenge the assignment agreements as he was not a party to

1 In her certification, the employee represented that SPS was "[p]laintiff's authorized servicer and agent for U.S. Bank, N A, successor trustee to [BOA]."5 A

- 0237

- 17T2

them; there was no break in t he chain of title; and BOA had sta nding as successor in interest to LaSalle as trustee for Washington Mutual. 2 Summary judgment should be granted if the court determines "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law." R. 4:46

- 2(c). We review the motion judge's decision de novo and afford his ruling no special deference. Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. , 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016). We "consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non

- moving party" in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, "are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non

moving party." Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). "The only material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of the mortgage, the amount of the indebtedness, and the right of the mortgagee to resort to the mortgaged premises." Great Falls Bank v. Pardo , 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div. 1993 ) , aff'd , 273 N.J. Super. 542 (App. Div. 1994) ; accord

2 The judge also granted the motion to substitute U.S. Bank, NA, successor trustee to BOA, successor in interest to LaSalle, as trustee, on behalf of th e HY3 Trust as plaintiff and denied defendant's cross

- motion for summary ju dgment

. Defendant did not appeal those rulings.6 A

- 0237

- 17T2

Sun NLF Ltd

. P'ship v. Sasso , 313 N.J. Super. 546, 550 (App. Div. 1998)

. The right to foreclose arises upon proof of execution, recording of a mortgage and
note , and defa ult on payment of the note. Thorpe v. Floremoore Corp. , 20 N.J. Super. 34, 37 (App. Div. 1952). Inasmuch as defendant does not dispute that he executed the note and mortgage, or his June 2010 default, a nd the record supports BOA 's standing to foreclose, summary judgment was correctly granted. Contrary to defend ant's arguments, BOA demonstrated standing by submitting proof of the pre

- complaint assignment of mortgage. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Am s . v. Angeles , 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012) ( holding "either possession of the note or an assignment of the mortgage that predated the original complaint confer[s] standing"). Plaintiff's servicing company's employee submitted with her certification a true and accurate copy
of the note and the May 3 , 2010 assignment of mortgage to BOA which was recorded on May 14, 2010

– well prior to the foreclosure complaint filing date of June 26 , 2014

. We agree with the judge that the certification, supported by the business records attached, established BOA's s tanding. N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). Defendant also argues WaMu, from which defendant obtaine d the loan , ceased banking operations and that there were multiple assignments between7 A

- 0237

- 17T2

2007 , when the HY3 T rust was created , 3 and 2010 , when JPMorgan assigned the mortgage to BOA

. He contends BOA does not have "any rights to this [m]ortgage unless it can establish prior [a]ssignments into the [HY3 ] [T] rust , " without proof of which BOA did not have stan ding "because the [ t ]rust cannot validly hold an interest because it failed to comply with the governi ng pool ing and servicing agreement " which created the trust. It is not disputed that BOA was successor in interest to LaSalle, which

w as the trustee of the HY3 T rust , and that d efendant's mortgage was included in that trust ; defendant included that portion of the pooling and servicing agreement establishing those relationships in the appendix to his merits brief. If there was a failure to comply with the pooling and servicing ag reement, defendant, who was not a party to the agreement, lacks standing to challenge it.
See Bank of N.Y. v. Raftogianis , 418 N.J. Super. 323, 350 (Ch. Div. 2010) (" [L] itigants generally have no standing to assert the rights of third parties.");

s ee also Giles v. Phelan, Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP , 901 F. Supp. 2d 509 , 532 (D.N.J. 2012) (finding plaintiffs could not challenge the validity of assignments transferring their mortgage from one holder to another); Corr eia v. Deutsche

3 Only a portion of the pooling and servicing agreement appointing LaSalle as the original trustee of the HY3 T rust , that included defendant's mortgage as an asset , is provided in the appendix

.8 A

- 0237

- 17T2

Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. , 452 B.R. 319, 324

- 25 ( B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2011) (finding debtors lacked standing to argue that assignment of their mortgage violated a pooling and servicing agreement because they were not parties to the agreement , nor third

- party beneficiaries there of).
We perceive no merit in defendant's argument that plaintiff violated Rule
4:64

- 1(b)(10) by not listing in the complaint additional assignments in the chain of title, beyond the one plaintiff re cited from JPMorgan to BOA

. Rule 4:64

- 1(b)(10) provides, " if the plaintiff is not the original mortgagee or original nominee mortgagee, " the complaint shall state " the names of the original mortgagee and a recital of all assignments in the chain of title ." BOA's complaint recited the March 20, 200 6 origination of the mortgage by WaMu and the May 3, 2010 assignment from JPMorgan to BOA, the terms of which set forth JPMorgan's purchase of WaMu's assets, the FDIC's involvement, BOA's status as trustee of the relevant trust, and the Oce an County record of the trust. As the judge fo und, U.S. Bank, BOA and LaSalle were trustees or

successor s of the HY3 T rust . As such, the judge correctly conclude d "the mortgage remained in the same name. " We do not read R ule 4:64

- 1(b)(10) to require trustees or successors of a trust created pursuant to a pooling and services agreement be recited in the foreclosure complaint

.9 A

- 0237

- 17T2

We determin e the balance of defendant's arguments , to the extent we have not addressed them, to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11

- 3(e)(1)(E). He raises no further arguments regarding the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We see no abuse of discretion in the denial of that motion. Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment , 440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2 015). Defendant presents no competent evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact as to whether BOA is the proper party in interest to bring this foreclosure complaint. As noted, BOA had standing to bring this foreclosure action; the complaint

– f iled four years ago

– set forth the basis for its standing. The complaint set forth all assignments; defendant has not present ed proof of other assignments. There is no evidence another entity has attempted to enforce
the note or mort gage since defendant' s default. Defendant d oes not contend he suffered prejudice as a result of any alleged defect in the pleading. Defendant has not paid his mortgage since June 2010. Final judgment was entered on July 27, 2017. Summary judgment and final judgment were pr operly entered in this
matter. Affirmed.