DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. ANIBAL ALCANTARA (F-016051-09, ESSEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5740-17T3
DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANIBAL ALCANTARA,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________
Submitted May 30, 2019 - Decided June 13, 2019
Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-
016051-09.
Anibal Alcantara, appellant pro se.
RAS Citron, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Micah C.
Pakay, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Anibal Alcantara appeals from a July 23, 2018 order which
denied his motion to vacate a default final judgment of foreclosure in favor of
plaintiff Ditech Financial, LLC. He claims plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose
and the motion judge erred when he concluded otherwise. We affirm for the
reasons expressed in the thorough and well-written decision of Judge Donald A.
Kessler.
"[A] default judgment will not be disturbed unless the failure to answer or
otherwise appear and defend was excusable under the circumstances and unless
the defendant has a meritorious defense[.]" Haber v. Haber, 253 N.J. Super.
413, 417 (App. Div. 1992) (quoting Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court
Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 4:50–1 (1992)). We review such determinations for an abuse
of discretion. Mancini v. Eds ex rel. N.J. Auto. Full Ins. Underwriting Ass'n,
132 N.J. 330, 334 (1993).
Having applied the standard of review, we conclude defendant's
arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Kessler correctly found defendant had
demonstrated neither the excusable neglect nor the meritorious defense required
to vacate the default judgment. Defendant has not persuaded us the judge abused
his discretion.
Affirmed.
A-5740-17T3
2