BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING VS. ROXANNE COLEMAN(F-034749-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3532-15T1 BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROXANNE COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant, and JENNIFER HULVEY, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of ROBERT COLEMAN; CATHLEEN SCHLEPPY, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of ROBERT COLEMAN; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Successor Trustee to JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders of the CWHEQ INC., CWHEQ REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST SERIES 2005-B; and ALERT AMBULANCE SERVICE, Defendants. ________________________________________________________________ Submitted September 6, 2017 – Decided September 21, 2017 Before Judges Rothstadt and Vernoia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. F-034749-14. Roxanne Coleman, appellant pro se. Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, PC, attorneys for respondent (Douglas J. McDonough, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this foreclosure action, defendant Roxanne Coleman appeals from orders entered by the Chancery Division on March 20, 2015, awarding plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC summary judgment, striking defendant's answer, entering default and transferring the matter to the Office of Foreclosure, and denying defendant's application to dismiss the complaint. She also appeals from the court's October 23, 2015 and April 1, 2016 orders denying defendant's motions to vacate judgment and dismiss plaintiff's complaint. Judge Patricia Del Bueno Cleary denied each of defendant's motions, setting forth her reasons on the record on March 19, 2015, October 22, 2015, and March 31, 2016. As stated in her decisions, the judge found that defendant's challenge to plaintiff's standing to pursue the foreclosure and her claims of defects in required notices were without merit. On appeal, defendant repeats the arguments she raised before Judge Del Bueno Cleary and contends that the judge "abused [her] 2 A-3532-15T1 discretion and erred [by] disregarding Defendant's evidence and not dismissing the Complaint." She again specifically argues that plaintiff lacked standing and claims that the Notice of Intention to Foreclose was defective. We conclude from our review of the record and applicable legal principles that defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11- 3(e)(1)(E), and we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Del Bueno Cleary in her cogent decisions. Affirmed. 3 A-3532-15T1