FEDERAL HOME LOAN VS. PEGGY ANNE REINHARDT (F-040191, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5506-18T1
FEDERAL HOME LOAN,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PEGGY ANNE REINHARDT,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
Submitted July 28, 2020 – Decided August 5, 2020
Before Judges Sumners and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket
No. F-040191-15.
Peggy Anne Reinhardt, appellant pro se.
Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PC, attorneys for
respondent (Brian J. Yoder, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Peggy Anne Reinhardt appeals from a July 10, 2019 order
denying her motion for a stay of eviction. Because defendant has been
evicted, we dismiss her appeal as moot.
Defendant's eviction relates to a final judgment of foreclosure obtained
by plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation on August 18, 2017,
arising from defendant's default on a promissory note. Defendant pledged her
residential property as collateral for payment of the note and executed a non-
purchase money mortgage. After the entry of the foreclosure judgment,
defendant received two statutory adjournments of the scheduled sheriff's sale.
The sheriff's sale eventually took place on November 27, 2018, and plaintiff
purchased the property at the sale.
Plaintiff obtained a writ of possession on April 4, 2019 and scheduled
defendant's eviction for July 17, 2019. Defendant's requests for a stay of the
eviction were denied by the trial court, an appellate court, and the Supreme
Court for failure to demonstrate grounds for emergent relief consistent with
Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982). According to plaintiff, "the eviction
was completed" on July 17, 2019.
A-5506-18T1
2
On appeal, defendant timely challenges only the July 10, 2019 order
denying a stay of her eviction. However, defendant's arguments on appeal
related to the August 2017 final judgment of foreclosure.
In April 2018, defendant was granted the opportunity to file a motion to
vacate the foreclosure judgment. However, she failed to do so. Nor did
defendant file an appeal from the foreclosure judgment. Thus, defendant's
arguments related to the foreclosure judgment are untimely and are not
properly before this court.
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that defendant's challenge
to the July 10, 2019 order denying a stay of eviction is moot. An issue is moot
when "our decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical
effect on the existing controversy." Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell,
422 N.J. Super. 214, 221-22 (App. Div. 2011) (quoting Greenfield v. N.J.
Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006)). See also
Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J. Super. 246, 251 (App. Div. 2005) (holding in the
context of a landlord-tenant matter, "[o]rdinarily, where a tenant no longer
resides in the property, an appeal challenging the propriety of an eviction is
moot").
A-5506-18T1
3
Defendant's notice of appeal identified the July 10, 2019 order denying
her application to stay the eviction, following the sheriff's sale of the
mortgaged property after a final judgment of foreclosure. Since purchasing the
property in November 2018, plaintiff paid all carrying costs associated with
the property. Defendant exhausted her entitlement to the statutory stays of the
sheriff's sale related to the foreclosure action and the hardship stays associated
with plaintiff's eviction action. Her request for a stay of eviction was denied
by three different courts.
Defendant is no longer in possession of the property because she was
evicted on July 17, 2019. Thus, defendant's appeal of the trial court's denial of
a stay of the eviction is dismissed as moot.
Dismissed.
A-5506-18T1
4