Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
-Aurora-v-Toledo-10-18-11-NJSC-We question whether Lehman’s designation of MERS as its nominee remained in effect after Lehman filed its bankruptcy

-Aurora-v-Toledo-10-18-11-NJSC-We question whether Lehman’s designation of MERS as its nominee remained in effect after Lehman filed its bankruptcy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 20|Likes:
Published by winstons2311
AURORA v. TOLEDO | NJ SC “We question whether Lehman’s designation of MERS as its nominee remained in effect after Lehman filed its bankruptcy” - 2011-10-18 23:21:20-04

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0804-10T3 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BERNICE TOLEDO, Defendant-Appellant, and MR. TOLEDO, Husband of BERNICE TOLEDO, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., As Nominee For LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK FSB; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., As Nominee [...]

...Accordingly we reverse the August 31, 2010 Order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings in conformity with this
opinion...

AURORA v. TOLEDO | NJ SC “We question whether Lehman’s designation of MERS as its nominee remained in effect after Lehman filed its bankruptcy” - 2011-10-18 23:21:20-04

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0804-10T3 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BERNICE TOLEDO, Defendant-Appellant, and MR. TOLEDO, Husband of BERNICE TOLEDO, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., As Nominee For LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK FSB; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., As Nominee [...]

...Accordingly we reverse the August 31, 2010 Order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and remand to the trial court for further proceedings in conformity with this
opinion...

More info:

Published by: winstons2311 on Oct 19, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THEAPPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISIONSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYAPPELLATE DIVISIONDOCKET NO. A-0804-10T3AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC,Plaintiff-Respondent,v.BERNICE TOLEDO,Defendant-Appellant,andMR. TOLEDO, Husband ofBERNICE TOLEDO, MORTGAGEELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONSYSTEMS, INC., As NomineeFor LEHMAN BROTHERS BANK FSB;MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONSYSTEMS, INC., As Nominee ForAURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,Defendants. _________________________________________________________ Submitted September 26, 2011 - DecidedBefore Judges Alvarez and Skillman.On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,Chancery Division, Passaic County, DocketNo. F-10005-09.Kenneth C. Marano, attorney for appellant.Victoria E. Edwards (Akerman Senterfitt),attorney for respondent.October 18, 2011
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
 
A-0804-10T3
2PER CURIAMDefendant appeals from an order entered on August 31, 2010, which granted a summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosureaction declaring that defendant's answer "sets forth no genuineissue as to any material fact challenged and that [plaintiff] isentitled to a judgment as a matter of law." There is noindication in the record before us that plaintiff ever secured afinal judgment of foreclosure. Therefore, the appeal appearsinterlocutory. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Garner, 416 N.J.Super. 520, 523-24 (App. Div. 2010). However, because defendantdid not move to dismiss on that basis and the appeal has beenpending for a substantial period of time, we grant leave toappeal as within time and address the merits. See R. 2:4-4(b)(2).The record before us is rather sparse and disjointed.However, the following facts may be gleaned from that record.Defendant owns a home in the Borough of Prospect Park. OnJuly 24, 2006, defendant executed two promissory notes payableto Lehman Brothers Bank, the first for $320,000, which waspayable on August 1, 2036, and the second for $60,000, which waspayable on August 1, 2021. Both notes were secured by mortgageson defendant's home.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
 
A-0804-10T3
3On September 1, 2006, plaintiff began servicing the noteson behalf of Lehman.Sometime in 2008, defendant went into default in thepayment of her obligations under the notes.On January 30, 2009, plaintiff purportedly obtained anassignment of the $320,000 note from Lehman and the mortgagesecuring that note.
1
This assignment was signed by a personnamed Joann Rein, with the title of Vice-President of MortgageElectronic Systems, Inc. (MERS). MERS was described in theassignment document as a "nominee for Lehman Brothers Bank."This document is discussed in greater detail later in theopinion.On February 23, 2009, plaintiff filed this mortgageforeclosure action. The parties subsequently engaged innegotiations to resolve the matter. Those negotiations wereunsuccessful and are not relevant to our disposition of thisappeal.Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment to strikedefendant's answer on the ground there was no contested issue offact material to plaintiff's right to foreclose upon defendant'sproperty. In support of this motion, plaintiff relied primarily
1
The record does not indicate whether there also was anassignment of the $60,000 note and mortgage securing that note.
www.StopForeclosureFraud.com

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->