Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, DOCKET NO. A–0582–16T4

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Citation188 A.3d 1105,455 N.J.Super. 254
Docket NumberDOCKET NO. A–0582–16T4
Parties CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. James I. PECK, IV, Defendant–Appellant.
Decision Date18 June 2018

455 N.J.Super. 254
188 A.3d 1105

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Plaintiff–Respondent,
James I. PECK, IV, Defendant–Appellant.

DOCKET NO. A–0582–16T4

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued April 25, 2018
Decided June 18, 2018

Nicolas A. Stratton argued the cause for appellant (Stratton Stepp, LLP, attorneys; Nicolas A. Stratton, on the brief).

Danielle Weslock argued the cause for respondent (McCarter & English, LLP, attorneys; Joseph Lubertazzi, Jr., of counsel and on the brief; Danielle Weslock, on the brief).

Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz, and Manahan.

The opinion of the court was delivered by


455 N.J.Super. 255

In this appeal of an August 26, 2016 final residential foreclosure judgment, defendant James I. Peck, IV1 contends that, after the promissory note, without the mortgage, was sold to Freddie Mac, and Capital One, N.A. (CONA) became the loan servicer on behalf of Freddie Mac, CONA could not foreclose on his home because it

455 N.J.Super. 256

did not possess the note and a valid assignment of mortgage at the time it filed the complaint. He argues that only Freddie Mac had standing to foreclose. Although we agree that in these unusual circumstances where one entity owns the note and another the mortgage, both the note and a valid mortgage assignment are required to foreclose, we affirm in spite of certain irregularities.

Freddie Mac's form 10–K annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides the following information. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac, is a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) chartered by Congress in 1970. Its public mission is to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the United States housing market. It does this primarily by purchasing residential mortgage loans originated by lenders. It does not originate loans or lend money directly to mortgage borrowers. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Form 10–K, "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation," (last visited May 29, 2018).

On March 10, 2005, defendant executed a promissory note to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., (CCB) which was secured by a residential mortgage by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), for $258,750.2 On July 28, 2005, CCB sold defendant's note to Freddie Mac, but retained

188 A.3d 1107

the mortgage. In July 2009, CCB converted to a national bank and merged with CONA. Defendant defaulted on the loan in 2010, and did not pay the mortgage or taxes after that date. The original mortgage states: "MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for [l]ender and [l]ender's successors and assigns."

455 N.J.Super. 257

MERS, which also states in the "Assignment of Mortgage" that it is "acting solely as nominee for [CCB], its successors and assigns," assigned the mortgage to CONA on February 9, 2011, more than one year after CCB merged into CONA.

At least since July 15, 2009, defendant received repeated notices that identified CONA as the servicer on the loan, although Freddie Mac remained the investor. Defendant also conceded that he made payments to CONA. In June 2012, the court dismissed without prejudice an earlier foreclosure proceeding initiated by CONA, F–003445–11, because CONA failed to comply with the court-ordered deposition of an employee who could provide information about possible mortgage irregularities. CONA brought the original note to court in that proceeding. The note was subsequently returned to Freddie Mac later in 2012.

On February 15, 2013, CONA initiated the present foreclosure proceedings. The court dismissed the contesting answer on June 9, 2015, and referred the case to the Office of Foreclosure for entry of final judgment as uncontested. R. 4:64–1. Defendant's motion for reconsideration was denied on May 5, 2016 and his subsequent motion for summary judgment was denied on November 25, 2016, after defendant's death.3 Defendant appeals from the entry of final judgment arguing that CONA lacked standing to foreclose.

Our review is de novo, applying the same legal standard as the trial court. Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346, 157 A.3d 416 (2017). Summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that 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." Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburg, 224 N.J. 189, 199, 129 A.3d 1069 (2016)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Bank of Am. v. R.H. Surgent, LLC
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 31 Agosto 2022 U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Morgan Stanley Mortg. Cap., Inc., 457 N.J.Super. 237, 240-41 (App. Div. 2018). Accord Cap. One, NA v. Peck, 455 N.J.Super. 254, 258-59 (App. Div. 2018); New Century Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Oughla, 437 N.J.Super. 299, 314 (App. Div. 2014); Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.......
  • Faulk v. Martucci
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 26 Enero 2021
    ...standing as Harry's guardian of the person. "Standing is not a jurisdictional issue in New Jersey," Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, 455 N.J. Super. 254, 259 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 235 N.J. 469 (2018), but merely "an element of justiciability[.]" Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Russo, 429 N.......
  • PHH Mortg. Corp. v. Labossiere
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 18 Marzo 2021
    ...have standing to maintain the foreclosure action. "Standing is not a jurisdictional issue in New Jersey." Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, 455 N.J. Super. 254, 259 (App. Div. 2018) (citing Deutsch Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Russo, 429 N.J. Super. 91, 101 (App Div. 2012)). Instead, standing "is an elem......
  • Nations Tar Mortg., LLC v. Guenzel, DOCKET NO. A-0912-16T4
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 1 Octubre 2018
    ...2012) (citing Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J. Super. 214, 216 (App. Div. 2011)); see also Capital One, N.A. v. Peck, 455 N.J. Super. 254, 259 (App. Div. 2018) (holding that "when the note is separated from the mortgage, the plaintiff in a foreclosure action must demonstrate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT