Nations Tar Mortg., LLC v. Guenzel, DOCKET NO. A-0912-16T4

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
PartiesNATIONS TAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TEDD W. GUENZEL, Defendant-Appellant, and MRS. TEDD W. GUENZEL, his wife, and TD BANK, N.A., Defendants.
Docket NumberDOCKET NO. A-0912-16T4
Decision Date01 October 2018

NATIONS TAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent,
TEDD W. GUENZEL, Defendant-Appellant,
MRS. TEDD W. GUENZEL, his wife, and TD BANK, N.A., Defendants.

DOCKET NO. A-0912-16T4


Submitted September 6, 2018
October 1, 2018


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.

Before Judges Rothstadt and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Camden County, Docket No. F-037325-14.

Tedd W. Guenzel, appellant pro se.

Page 2

Sandelands Eyet, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Suzanne Q. Chamberlin, of counsel and on the brief).


Defendant Tedd W. Guenzel appeals from the Chancery Division's August 19, 20161 order denying his motion under Rule 4:50-1 to vacate the final judgment of foreclosure, and to dismiss with prejudice the complaint filed against him in this matter. Before denying his motion, the trial court had entered an order striking defendant's contesting answer because he failed to appear for trial on September 10, 2015, either personally or by telephone. The court also remanded the matter back to the Office of Foreclosure for processing as an uncontested action. Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of final judgment, which defendant opposed by filing a motion to fix the amount due. On March 18, 2016, the trial court denied his motion and on March 31, 2016, the court entered a final judgment.

Defendant filed his motion to vacate in July 2016, arguing that plaintiff did not have standing to bring this action because Fannie Mae was "the owner

Page 3

of the mortgage note," which defendant did not know "until May 2016." He also submitted a "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" challenging plaintiff's proofs relating to the assignment and ownership of the note and mortgage, and defendant's default under the note, because there was no evidence or testimony presented at a trial. The trial court denied defendant's motion, placing its reasons on the record and stating that there was no merit to defendant's challenges. As to the assignment, the court concluded that defendant was not "a party to that assignment and has no basis or standing to challenge that assignment." Ultimately, the court denied the motion because defendant was given an opportunity to challenge plaintiff's proofs at trial, but chose not to attend, obviating any necessity for the court to take testimony or have exhibits admitted at a trial. This appeal followed.

On appeal, defendant argues he is entitled to relief under Rule 4:50-1 based on the same challenges to plaintiff's entitlement to sue that he raised before the trial court—lack of standing to sue, lack of evidence of default, and invalid assignment of the mortgage.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court. We conclude that defendant's arguments are without...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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