Legacy Mortgage Asset Trust 2021-Gs4 v. Nicole P. Gomez

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3823-24

LEGACY MORTGAGE ASSET TRUST 2021-GS4,

Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NICOLE P. GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

Submitted June 30, 2026 ‒ Decided August 24, 2026 Before Judges Natali and Bishop-Thompson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, Docket No. F-

010354-23.

Nicole P. Gomez, self-represented appellant.

Pluese, Becker, Saltzman & Thomas, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Stuart H. West, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

In this residential mortgage foreclosure matter, defendant Nicole P.

Gomez appeals from three orders: the April 12, 2024 order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Legacy Mortgage Asset Trust 2021-GS4 and denying her motion to dismiss the complaint; the July 7, 2025 order denying her motion objecting to the redemption amount of $419,200.02; and the July 17, 2025 order entering final judgment. We affirm all orders.

In July 2006, defendant and Alonzo B. Richardson executed a note and mortgage for $219,434.54 with Beneficial New Jersey Inc. d/b/a Beneficial Mortgage Co. (Beneficial) by Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (Caliber) for their home in Ewing, also identified as Trenton in the record. 1 The mortgage was subsequently recorded by the Mercer County Clerk's Office.

On March 26, 2015, title was conveyed by defendant and Richardson, solely to defendant. 2 In April 2015, Beneficial assigned the mortgage to U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust by Caliber, which was duly recorded. The new deed was recorded in the Mercer County Clerk's Office on April 13, 2015.

1 Defendant and Richardson executed the mortgage and note as married individuals. Richardson is not a party to this appeal. 2 The appendix does not contain a deed evidencing defendant's sole ownership of the Ewing property.

A-3823-24

3

On March 9, 2016, defendant, Richardson, and Caliber Home Loans executed a "Foreclosure Forbearance Agreement – Limited Term Interest Only" for the outstanding balance of $315,206.97. The agreement reduced the new principal balance to $206,484.74, with unpaid interest of $57,885.93, and other unpaid amounts of $50,836.30. The reduced mortgage payment was to be in effect from March 28, 2016, to March 28, 2021. However, it was not recorded.

The mortgage went through a series of assignments: in July 2018, U.S.

Bank Trust to Citibank, N.A., as trustee for CMLTI Asset Trust; in October 2018, Citibank, N.A. to Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-A; and on June 3, 2022, Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2018-A to MCLP Asset Company, Inc.; and on June 9, 2022, MCLP Asset Company, Inc. to plaintiff. Beneficial assigned its interest from the 2006 mortgage in the amount of $26,000 to U.S. Bank in December 2021. Each assignment was duly recorded in the clerk's office.

Plaintiff received the last mortgage payment on April 23, 2021, in the amount of $3,094.95, which was applied to the February and March payments. Defendant failed to make the mortgage payment due on April 1, 2021, and plaintiff subsequently declared both defendant and Richardson in default on April 28, 2021.

A-3823-24

4

Plaintiff's home retention department sent defendant and Richardson numerous loss mitigation letters offering assistance. The initial mitigation letter was sent in July 2021 to the Ewing address. They submitted a home retention package, which plaintiff acknowledged in a July 7, 2021 letter identifying missing items. Additional mitigation letters were sent to defendant's attorney in Rocklin, California in August and December 2021; January, June, October, and November 2022; and May 2023.

A second letter acknowledging receipt of defendant's home retention package was sent in June 2023 to a law firm in Iselin, New Jersey. Plaintiff then sent additional letters about mitigation options to defendant and Richardson at the firm's Iselin address.

Plaintiff's assistant secretary certified that notices of intention to foreclose (NOIs) were sent to defendant and Richardson on March 6, 2023, by both regular and certified mail with a tracking number to the Ewing property and the Rocklin, California address. The certified mailing to the California address was returned marked "unclaimed" and "unable to forward," but the regular mail was not returned. The default remained uncured; plaintiff filed a complaint in August 2023. Defendant's contested answer, which denied the allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses, reflected the Ewing address.

A-3823-24

5

Plaintiff served discovery on defendant at the Ewing property and subsequently moved for summary judgment. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, disputing the loan was in default , asserting the mortgage was void, and contesting service of the NOI, among other claims. In support of her position, defendant relied on the tracking information to show the notice had been mailed but did not show delivery.

After hearing argument on April 12, 2024, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In its oral opinion, the court stated:

The plaintiff stated that . . . if a request for admission is not denied within [thirty] days of service, it's deemed to be admitted. In this case, . . . that's what happened.

She failed to respond specifically, so she is considered admitting to the default of its obligations on the note, bond mortgage at the time set forth in the complaint, and that default has not been cured.

. . . although she shows that there w[as] . . . some back and forth regarding payments up to a certain point, as of 2021, some date afterwards, there were no payments made from that point on . . . . Nevertheless, she failed to convince the [c]ourt that there's . . . not a genuine issue of material fact in this matter.

Foreclosure went through . . . as indicated. She admitted to all of that in her lack of discovery and also the admissions. And therefore, for those reasons, I'm going to grant the application in favor of . . . plaintiff regarding summary judgment.

A-3823-24

6

The court accepted plaintiff's characterization of defendant's cross-motion as a response to its own motion. It denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.

Defendant raises two arguments on appeal for our consideration. She first argues the trial court abused its discretion by not explaining its findings of fact and conclusions of law in granting summary judgment and denying her cross- motion. Defendant asserts she was entitled to receive a NOI and that the court erred in concluding otherwise. On appeal, defendant reprises the arguments presented to the trial court.

We review the trial court's grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Christakos v. Boyadjis, 262 N.J. 447, 462 (2026) (citing Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189, 199 (2016)). Under that standard, the court must "determine whether 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law.'" Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, 244 N.J. 567, 582 (2021) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)). Thus, "[s]ummary judgment should be granted . . . 'against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence

A-3823-24

7

of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Friedman v. Martinez, 242 N.J. 449, 472 (2020) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986)). Courts must give the non-moving party "'the benefit of the most favorable evidence and most favorable inferences drawn from that evidence.'" Est. of Narleski v. Gomes, 244 N.J. 199, 205 (2020) (quoting Gormley v. Wood-El, 218 N.J. 72, 86 (2014)).

As a threshold matter, we address defendant's argument that plaintiff failed to comply with the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:50-53 to -82, because defendant alleges she did not receive the NOI sent to the Ewing address and the other NOI was mailed to an incorrect address in Rocklin, California. Defendant misreads the statute, which requires only that the NOI be mailed; actual receipt or proof of delivery is not necessary. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(b); EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super. 126, 140 (App. Div. 2008). Under both N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(b) and Rule 1:5-4(b), service was deemed complete upon mailing. The competent, unrefuted evidence in the summary judgment record establishes that plaintiff complied with the FFA. See U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n. v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 470 (2012).

The record demonstrates plaintiff had three different addresses for defendant, supporting the inference that defendant deliberately attempted to

A-3823-24

8

frustrate plaintiff's efforts by ignoring correspondence, including the NOI. Accordingly, we cannot accept defendant's position, which would effectively countenance an avoidance of her obligations to plaintiff. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. at 140.

We next address defendant's argument that the record does not contain sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court's ruling. She contends, even if the motion was uncontested, the motion court must consider whether undisputed facts are sufficient to entitle her to relief.

A party seeking to foreclose must demonstrate that defendant executed a note and mortgage, the mortgage had been recorded, and defendant thereafter defaulted. N.Y. Mortg. Tr. 2005-3 Mortg.-Backed Notes, U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. v. Deely, 466 N.J. Super. 387, 397 (App. Div. 2021) (citing Thorpe v. Floremoore Corp., 20 N.J. Super. 34, 37 (App. Div. 1952)). The "'only material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of the mortgage, the amount of the indebtedness, and the right of the mortgagee to resort to the mortgaged premises.'" Ibid. (quoting Invs. Bank v. Torres, 457 N.J. Super. 53, 65 (App. Div. 2018)).

Based on our de novo review, the record shows defendant was aware of the modified loan agreement, and a default under the note occurred, entitling

A-3823-24

9

plaintiff to accelerate the debt and foreclose on the mortgage. Defendant's failure to make the April 2021 payment constituted default.

The burden of contesting plaintiff's claim—the validity of the mortgage, the payment history, and the balance due—rested with defendant. See Spiotta v. William H. Wilson, Inc., 72 N.J. Super. 572, 581 (App. Div. 1962). As the motion court explained, defendant failed to produce credible evidence rebutting the competent evidence in the record. Defendant's failure to respond to plaintiff's requests for admission resulted in those issues being deemed admitted, establishing undisputed material facts. In sum, plaintiff's motion was unopposed. The motion court, therefore, properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff.

Additionally, defendant has waived any argument to the denial of her motion objecting to the final judgment, as well as the entry of final judgment itself. Although defendant appeals from the entry of those orders, neither order is addressed in her brief. See State v. D.F.W., 468 N.J. Super. 422 (App. Div. 2021) (declining to address arguments not formally raised in the defendant's brief); see also Woodlands Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Mitchell, 450 N.J. Super. 310, 319 (App. Div. 2017) (quoting Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657

A-3823-24

10

(App. Div. 2011)) (explaining "[a]n issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived").

Affirmed.

A-3823-24