US Bank Trust National Association, Etc. v. Ifeoma Ezekwo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2297-24 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not in its individual capacity but solely as owner Trustee for VRMTG ASSET TRUST, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. IFEOMA EZEKWO, Defendant-Appellant, and SAMUEL EZEKWO, a/k/a SAMUEL I. EZEKWO, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. _________________________________ Submitted September 21, 2026 – Decided September 29, 2026 Before Judges Berdote Byrne and Torregrossa- O'Connor. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket No. F- 001868-23. Ifeoma Ezekwo, self-represented appellant. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, attorneys for respondent (John D. Krohn, on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Ifeoma Ezekwo appeals from an order entering final judgment of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff US Bank Trust National Association , as Trustee for VRMTG ASSET TRUST, asking the court to review proofs underlying the foreclosure judgment. After careful review, we affirm. Defendant presents a number of irrelevant arguments and unspecified allegations in support of her challenge to the order of final judgment of foreclosure, including violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA); RICO conspiracy; malicious prosecution; judicial misconduct and bias; constitutional violations; and fraud. Objections as to only the amount due may be made to a motion for final judgment of foreclosure. Defendant did not raise any arguments regarding the specific amount owned, either before the trial court or in this appeal. Moreover, plaintiff presented the proofs necessary to A-2297-24 2 establish the validity of the mortgage, the amount of indebtedness, and the right of plaintiff as mortgagee to foreclose on the mortgaged property. I. On December 17, 2003, Ifeoma Ezekwo and Samuel Ezekwo executed a note in the original principal amount of $380,250.00 in favor of Cendant Mortgage Corporation d/b/a PHH Mortgage Services, secured by a mortgage on property located at 54-56 Central Avenue, Englewood, New Jersey 07631. The mortgage was later assigned to Federal National Mortgage Association in December 2015, and the assignment was recorded. The mortgage was further assigned to Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper in April 2019 and recorded. The final mortgage assignment was to plaintiff in October 2021, and the assignment was once again recorded. The mortgage loan was modified effective November 1, 2019. Defendant failed to make the monthly payment on January 1, 2020, and all payments thereafter, resulting in default thirty days after the missed payment. Plaintiff filed this residential mortgage foreclosure action against defendant and various other parties 1 on February 16, 2023. On May 31, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss and, alternatively, for summary judgment. Ultimately, 1 The various other parties did not participate in this appeal. A-2297-24 3 plaintiff's right to foreclose was established in the contested matter by a September 15, 2023 order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, striking defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, granting plaintiff's cross - motion for summary judgment, deeming the matter uncontested pursuant to Rule 4:64-1(c); entering default against all defendants; and transferring the case to the Office of Foreclosure to determine the amount due. Plaintiff filed a motion for final judgment of foreclosure on January 10, 2025. Defendant filed opposition to plaintiff's motion on January 19, 2025. Oral argument was held in defendant's absence on March 19, 2025. The trial court entered final judgment of foreclosure on March 26, 2025. II. We review a decision granting a motion for entry of a final judgment of foreclosure for abuse of discretion. Customers Bank v. Reitnour Inv. Props., LP, 453 N.J. Super. 338, 348 (App. Div. 2018). An abuse of discretion arises when a court's decision is made "without rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." Ibid. (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)). However, we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo, giving "no special deference to the legal determinations of the trial court." Inv'rs Bank v. Torres, A-2297-24 4 243 N.J. 25 , 47 (2020) (quoting Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016)). Having reviewed defendant's various arguments in light of established legal principles, we affirm the trial court's entry of the final judgment of foreclosure. New Jersey's foreclosure procedure is governed primarily by Rule 4:64-1. A foreclosure action is deemed uncontested if: (1) a default has been entered for failure to plead or otherwise defend; (2) none of the responsive pleadings contest the validity or priority of the mortgage or lien being foreclosed, or create an issue with respect to the plaintiff's right to foreclose; or (3) all contesting pleadings have been stricken or otherwise rendered noncontesting. R. 4:64-1(c). In uncontested cases, a plaintiff may apply for entry of a final judgment of foreclosure through the Office of Foreclosure in the Administrative Office of the Courts. R. 4:64-1(d)(1). In contested cases, the trial court, rather than the Office of Foreclosure, must resolve any disputed issues. Once the contested issues are resolved—for example, by the court striking the contesting answer or granting summary judgment—the case is returned to the Office of Foreclosure to proceed as an uncontested matter. A-2297-24 5 Rule 4:64-1(d) governs the procedure to enter a final judgment of foreclosure and for objecting to the amount due determined by the Office of Foreclosure. In the within matter, defendant appeals from the March 26, 2025 order entering final judgment of foreclosure, not the September 15, 2023 order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, striking defendant's answer and affirmative defenses, granting's plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, deeming the matter uncontested pursuant to Rule 4:64-1(c); entering default against all defendants; and transferring the case to the Office of Foreclosure to determine the amount due. Once a matter is deemed uncontested, as here, R. 4:64-1(d)(3) sets forth the procedure for a mortgagor to object to the amount due determined by the Office of Foreclosure: Any party having right of redemption who disputes the correctness of the affidavit of amount due may file with the Office of Foreclosure an objection stating with specificity the basis of the dispute and asking the court to fix the amount due. On receipt of a specific objection to the calculation of the amount due, the Office of Foreclosure shall refer the matter to the judge in the county of venue, who shall schedule such further proceedings and notify the parties or their attorneys of the time and place thereof. [R. 4:64-1(d)(3).] A-2297-24 6 A final judgment of foreclosure "represents the final determination of the debt and amount due" on the mortgage being foreclosed. Reitnour, 453 N.J. Super. at 350 (quoting Colonial Bldg.-Loan Ass'n v. Mongiello Bros., 120 N.J. Eq. 270, 276 (Ch. 1936)). Accordingly, the only issue before us for appellate review of a final judgment of foreclosure is whether the judgment correctly states the amount due. Defendant did not address the amount due either before the trial court or in her appeal. We find no reason to disturb the final judgment of foreclosure. Moreover, although plaintiff did not appeal the September 15, 2023 order granting summary judgment, striking the answer, entering default, and transferring the matter to the Office of Foreclosure to determine the amount due , that order was interlocutory as it addressed issues relating only to plaintiff's right to foreclose and did not resolve issues concerning the amount due. Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Garner, 416 N.J. Super. 520, 523 (App. Div. 2010). Therefore, in the interest of completeness, we review the September 15, 2023 order and conclude plaintiff was entitled to final judgment because it demonstrated its right to foreclose, and because defendant's answer was correctly stricken by the trial court, rendering the action uncontested. A-2297-24 7 A mortgagee's "right to foreclose is an equitable right inherent in the mortgage." Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Spina, 325 N.J. Super. 42, 50 (Ch. Div. 1998), aff'd, 325 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1999). A mortgage assignee seeking standing to foreclose must present "an authenticated assignment indicating that it was assigned the note before it filed the original complaint." Torres, 243 N.J. at 40 (quoting Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 222 (App. Div. 2011)). "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." N.Y. Mortg. Tr. 2005-3 Mortg.-Backed Notes, U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n as Tr. v. Deely, 466 N.J. Super. 387 , 397 (App. Div. 2021). Here, plaintiff had properly established standing to foreclose as the final assignee of the mortgage and owner of the underlying debt. Plaintiff's proofs further demonstrated defendant had executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property on December 17, 2003. The mortgage was recorded with the Bergen County Clerk on January 23, 2004. Plaintiff had also shown defendant had not made any mortgage payments since the initial January 1, 2020 default. Plaintiff's proofs established its right to foreclose. None of the defendant's A-2297-24 8 arguments on appeal address these proofs. Defendant's brief instead reiterates from her stricken answer many of the same arguments irrelevant to the foreclosure at issue, as well as unsupported allegations of wrongdoing by various entities. The trial court did not abuse its discretion or misapply the law in entering final judgment. Affirmed. A-2297-24 9