Court Opinion

ID: 9942531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 15:08:17.168875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:11.958708
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1886-22

GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST
2013-1, U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION AS LEGAL
TITLE TRUSTEE,

          Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CARMELO A. ORTIZ,

          Defendant-Appellant,

and

JESSICA M. PEREZ, a/k/a
JESSICA SANCHEZ, and
JESSICA ORTIZ,

     Defendant.
____________________________

                   Submitted February 12, 2024 – Decided February 21, 2024

                   Before Judges Chase and Vinci.

                   On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
                   Chancery Division, Atlantic County, Docket No.
                   F-003185-18.
            Carmelo A. Ortiz, appellant pro se.

            Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners,
            PLLC, attorneys for respondent (Christian T. Miller, on
            the brief).

PER CURIAM

      Defendant Carmelo A. Ortiz appeals from a January 6, 2023 Chancery

Division order denying his motion to vacate default judgment and from a

February 17, 2023 order denying his motion for reconsideration, claiming the

trial court did not provide adequate reasons for its decision as required under

Rule 1:7-4(a). We affirm.

      We discern the following material facts from the record. This dispute

arises from defendant's default on a note in favor of American Sterling Bank for

$321,996 executed on April 15, 2008. The note was secured by a mortgage in

favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for

Prospect Mortgage, on defendant's residential property located at 509 North

Elberon Avenue in Atlantic City.

      The mortgage was assigned multiple times, and each assignment was

recorded in the Atlantic County Clerk's Office. On February 15, 2014, the

mortgage was assigned to GMAT Legal Title Trust 2013-1, U.S. Bank National

                                                                          A-1886-22
                                       2
Association ("GMAT"), as legal title trustee.       This final assignment was

properly recorded on February 15, 2014.

      Defendant failed to make monthly payments starting in November 2016.

GMAT filed a foreclosure complaint in February 2018. In October 2018, a final

judgment of foreclosure was entered.        The Atlantic County Sheriff then

scheduled a sheriff's sale of the property for January 2019.

      Defendant filed an initial motion to vacate the default and default

judgment in November 2018. While that motion was pending, defendant filed

for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which temporarily stayed the foreclosure action. In

July 2020, the bankruptcy case was dismissed. On August 25, 2021, defendant

filed another Chapter 13 bankruptcy, again staying the foreclosure. The stay

was vacated in June 2022, allowing the foreclosure to proceed.

      In November 2022, defendant filed a motion to vacate default pursuant to

Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f). The court set a January 6, 2023 hearing for oral argument

on that motion. Defendant failed to appear at the hearing, and the Court entered

an order denying the motion as a result.

      Defendant then filed a motion to vacate the January 6, 2023 order pursuant

to Rule 4:50-1(d) and (f). On February 17, 2023, defendant failed to appear

again, and the court denied the motion. Before ruling, the court recounted the

                                                                           A-1886-22
                                        3
procedural history of the matter on the record and then made findings of fact

regarding the substantive motion to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure.

The court properly set forth the law under Rule 4:50-1, finding "a final judgment

could only be vacated upon a showing of excusable neglect and meritorious

defense." The court then thoroughly analyzed both factors and concluded they

were not present in this case. As such, the motions were denied.

      On appeal, defendant contends the trial court's initial dismissal failed to

rule on the merits. Further, on the second motion to vacate, the court did not

provide an accompanying written statement of reasons denying his motion as

required by Rule 1:7-4.

      We review an order granting or denying vacatur of a final judgment for

an abuse of discretion. United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502-03 (2008).

An abuse of discretion arises "when a decision is 'made without a rational

explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an

impermissible basis.'" U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467-68

(2012) (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)).

Indeed, "[t]he trial court's determination under [Rule 4:50-1] warrants

substantial deference," and the abuse of discretion must be "clear" to warrant

reversal. Ibid.

                                                                           A-1886-22
                                       4
      Rule 1:7-4(a) requires courts "by an opinion or memorandum decision,

either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon in

all actions tried without a jury, on every motion decided by a written order that

is appealable as of right [] . . . ." (emphasis added). Findings of fact and

conclusions of law are also required on "'every motion decided by [a] written

order[] . . . appealable as of right.'" Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275,

282 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting R. 1:7-4(a)).

      The trial court denied the original motion for defendant's failure to appear

at oral argument. When defendant filed the same motion again, and failed to

appear again, the trial court placed on the record both the reasons for the

procedural denial of the motion and the substantive reasons the motion to vacate

the default was denied. The trial court orally stated its findings and correlated

them with the relevant legal conclusions as required by Rule 1:7-4.

      Affirmed.

                                                                            A-1886-22
                                        5