Wells fargo summary judgment denied multiple assignments new jersey

Barnes

Court Filings
o Complaint for Emergency Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and to Stay
Foreclosure Sale (Hawaii)
o Complaint to Vacate Final Judgment of Foreclosure for Fraud, Damages,
Injunctive Relief and Other Relief (Massachusetts)
o Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Washington)
o Frivilous Pleading Letter (Florida)
o Legal Memorandum in Opposion to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
(New Jersey)
o Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay Foreclosure Sale (Ohio)
o Motion to Stay Foreclosure (Ohio)
o Motion to Vacate Order Lifting Stay (California Bankruptcy Court)

Judicial Decisions
o Arkansas Court Adopts Anti-MERS Decision of Kansas Supreme Court
o Motion to Vacate Denied, US Bank v. Ibanez (Massachusetts)
o Order Dismissing Foreclosures on Real Party in Interest Ohio

Archives

Main Contents

SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED TO WELLS FARGO IN

NEW JERSEY
September 9, 2014
September 9, 2014
A New Jersey Chancery Judge has denied Wells Fargos Motion for Summary Judgment in a
case where there are five (5) Assignment of Mortgage documents, all on different dates, and all
cited by WF in its Complaint. WF has requested that the Court declare that 3 of the Assignments
are void and of no effect. Essentially, WF wants to pick and choose which Assignments fit its
theory of inheriting an interest in the Note and Mortgage, but without any legal basis for making
such a novel request.
The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and Michael Jacobson, Esq. of the Cooper
Levenson Firm in Atlantic City, NJ. Mr. Barnes prepared the legal briefing and argued the matter
last Friday, September 5.
The first assignment was by MERS from the original lender to EMC Mortgage, which was a
subsidiary of the long-defunct Bear Stearns. WF likes this and the 4th Assignment, which is from
EMC to WF. However, EMC was long out of business as of the time of the 4th Assignment, and
there is no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage traveled the five different paths per the
five different Assignments. WF also presented no law which permits a court to disregard any
assignment in favor of another, so that the chosen assignments fit the theory of transfer of the
foreclosing party.
In his oral disposition of the motion, the Judge stated I wish this Note could talk to us, to
explain how it went from the original lender to WF. Unfortunately, the Note cannot, and WF
presented no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage physically traveled from the original
lender to WF.
Summary judgment was denied. The Court also made note of a loan modification to the borrower
which was signed by MERS, which was curious as MERS is not a lender and does not have the
authority to modify a loan.
Jeff Barnes, Esq., www/ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com