SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1880-18T3

BANK OF NEW YORK AS 

TRUSTEE FOR THE 

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS

CWABS, INC., ASSET-BACKED

CERTIFICATES SERIES

2005-17,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT O. NEWMAN,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

ARIANE A. HUTCHINS-NEWMAN, 

his wife, MBNA AMERICA BANK, 

N.A., STATE OF NEW JERSEY,

SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY,

and DISCOVER BANK,

Defendants.

__________________________________

Submitted December 16, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

January 16, 2020
2

A-1880-18T3

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Atlantic County, Docket No. F009157-15.

Robert O. Newman, appellant pro se. 

Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (Anita Jeanne Murray, on the brief).

PER CURIAM 

Defendant appeals from a November 19, 2018 final foreclosure judgment. 

Defendant stopped paying his mortgage in April 2012. In 

March 2015, plaintiff filed this complaint, and in August 2015, defendant filed 

an answer noting "[plaintiff] states a legal conclusion of default, and [p]laintiff 

held the right to enforce the [n]ote without possession thereof against 

[d]efendant[,] to which no response is required. To the extent, a response is 

required whether or not [d]efendant denies the allegation and its subpart." A 

judge then denied defendant's motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment 

to plaintiff. Thereafter, final judgment was entered on plaintiff's motion, which 

was unopposed.1 The sheriff's sale occurred in March 2019. 

1

 In his merits brief, defendant focuses only on the orders granting summary 

judgment and dismissing his motion to dismiss, not the final judgment. We 

reiterate that defendant did not oppose plaintiff's motion seeking the entry of 

final judgment. 
3

A-1880-18T3

On appeal, defendant raises the following points for this court's 

consideration: 

POINT I 

THE [MOTION JUDGE] ERRED, AND ABUSED [HIS] 

DISCRETION GRANTING PLAINTIFF SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT WHEN THE ISSUE OF DEFAULT WAS 

STILL IN DISPUTE. 

POINT II

THE [MOTION JUDGE] ERRED, AND ABUSED [HIS] 

DISCRETION, DENYING DEFENDANT'S CROSSMOTION FOR DISMISSAL. 

We conclude defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We nevertheless add these 

brief remarks. 

Defendant contends summary judgment is precluded because the parties 

dispute whether he defaulted on the loan. When reviewing an order granting 

summary judgment, this court applies "the same standard governing the trial 

court." Oyola v. Xing Lan Liu, 431 N.J. Super. 493, 497 (App. Div. 2013). A 

court should grant summary judgment when the record reveals "no genuine issue 

as to any material fact" and "the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order 

as a matter of law." R. 4:46-2(c). Thus, "[t]o defeat a motion for summary 

judgment, the opponent must come forward with evidence that creates a genuine 

issue of material fact." Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 605 (App. Div. 
4

A-1880-18T3

2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "[C]onclusory and selfserving assertions by one of the parties are insufficient to overcome the 

motion[.]" Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41 (2005). Bare conclusions in 

the pleadings without factual support in affidavits will not defeat an application 

for summary judgment. Brae Asset Fund, L.P. v. Newman, 327 N.J. Super. 129, 

134 (App. Div. 1999). We owe no special deference to the motion judge's 

conclusions on issues of law. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of 

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff cited to specific 

portions of the record and submitted a certification from its foreclosure 

representative, which stated "defendant . . . defaulted under the terms and 

conditions of the aforesaid [n]ote and [m]ortgage by failing, refusing and/or 

neglecting to make the required payment for April 1, 2012, and all payments due 

thereafter." Defendant conceded the assertion was not a material fact precluding

summary judgment. Instead, defendant requested plaintiff's statement in its 

statement of material facts be stricken, explaining:

[I]t is not in the form required by R[ule] 4:46[-]2(a)

because (1) it is not a concise statement of fact but 

rather a legal conclusion, and (2) [p]laintiff has failed 

to provide a citation to the portion of the motion record 

establishing this fact or demonstrating that it is 

uncontroverted. Plaintiff has no [p]ayment [h]istory 
5

A-1880-18T3

that demonstrates default. This is, nonetheless, not a 

material fact precluding summary judgment and the 

[c]ourt should strike this statement. 

[(Emphasis added).]

In general, "[t]he 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). Plaintiff established—by citing to the record—the validity of the 

mortgage, the amount of the indebtedness, and the right to foreclose on the 

property. Moreover, plaintiff put forth its representative's certification that 

showed defendant defaulted on the loan on April 1, 2012. Defendant has not 

produced any evidence establishing any payment or satisfaction of the loan since 

default. Thus, plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

We reject defendant's contention that the judge erred by denying his 

motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendant states: "Defendant filed his [c]ross-

[m]otion for [d]ismissal because [p]laintiff offered no evidence of default; as a 

result, [p]laintiff had no cause of action to file the [c]omplaint." We review a 

judge's determination on a motion to dismiss de novo. Castello v. Wohler, 446 

N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 228 N.J. 39 (2016). The motion
6

A-1880-18T3

judge granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion and denied defendant's 

cross-motion to dismiss the complaint because plaintiff satisfied its burden: 

"Plaintiff established the validity and enforceability of the note and mortgage, 

and defendant[’]s default thereunder, and [defendant] has not submitted any 

evidence to the contrary[.]" The judge also found defendant's answer "is hereby 

deemed to be non-contesting." The judge further emphasized that defendant's 

answer was non-contesting because "none of the pleadings [are] responsive to 

the complaint, [meaning it neither] contests the validity or priority of the 

mortgage or lien being foreclosed[,] [n]or create[s] an issue with respect to 

plaintiff’s right to foreclose[.]" See R. 4:64-1(c) (setting forth the definition of 

uncontested action). 

Affirmed.