THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, ETC. VS. SEBASTIAN PACHOLEC (F-033592-15, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3367-17T3
THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON, f/k/a THE BANK OF
NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF
CWABS INC., ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-7,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SEBASTIAN PACHOLEC,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
UNIFUND CCR, LLC,
Defendant.
_______________________________
Submitted September 10, 2019 – Decided October 2, 2019
Before Judges Ostrer and Susswein.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No.
F-033592-15.
Sebastian Pacholec, appellant pro se.
Stern Lavinthal & Frankenberg, LLC, attorneys for
respondent (Mark S. Winter, of counsel and on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Sebastian Pacholec appeals from the judgment entered against
him in this mortgage foreclosure action. It is not disputed that defendant
borrowed $207,500 and has not made any payments since 2010. After this
appeal was filed, the trial judge, Judge Francis R. Hodgson, Jr., issued a ten -
page, single-spaced amplification letter pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b). The trial
court's amplification is thorough, detailed, and well-reasoned. We affirm the
judgment against defendant substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge
Hodgson's amplification letter.
Defendant's contentions on appeal do not warrant extensive discussion in
this written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The record before us establishes
that defendant obtained a loan for $207,500 that was secured by a mortgage on
real property. That mortgage was eventually assigned to plaintiff Bank of New
York Mellon, giving it standing to initiate the foreclosure action. Despite
defendant's claim to the contrary, we agree with Judge Hodgson that the note
included a default provision that authorized plaintiff to proceed against the
A-3367-17T3
2
collateral property. We also are satisfied that the trial judge properly rejected
the defenses raised by defendant under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and
Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA). 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 to 1667f; N.J.S.A. 2A:50-53 to
-68. The trial court properly concluded, for example, that defendant failed to
meet the burden of proof on the affirmative defense of payment, and that
plaintiff satisfied all of the pertinent process requirements set forth in TILA and
FFA, including timely service of a Notice of Intent to foreclose.
To the extent that Judge Hodgson's amplification letter does not address
an argument raised by defendant on appeal, the contention lacks sufficient merit
to warrant discussion in this written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-3367-17T3
3