NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2238-24
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DEMI TURNER, his heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and his/her, their, or any of their successors in right, title, and interest,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
ANTOINETTE JOHNSON-TURNER, her heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and his/her, their, or any of their successors in right, title, and interest, MRS. TURNER, wife of Demi Turner, MR. TURNER-JOHNSON, husband of Antoinette Turner-Johnson, PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE, individually and as subrogee of AMANDA M. LOPEZ, STATE OF NEW JERSEY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants. ___________________________________
Submitted April 29, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026
Before Judges Gummer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-001793-24.
Demi Turner, self-represented appellant.
Frenkel Lambert Weisman & Gordon, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Timothy Ziegler, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential-mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Demi Turner
(defendant) appeals from an August 28, 2024 order1 granting summary judgment
to plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a January 17, 2025 order denying his
motion for reconsideration, and a February 18, 2025 final judgment of
foreclosure. Having reviewed the record, the parties' arguments, and applicable
law, we affirm all orders on appeal.
I.
On March 03, 2007, defendant and Antoinette Johnson-Turner executed a
1 In his notice of appeal, defendant indicated he was appealing from an August 30, 2024 order. Given the record, we understand he meant the August 28, 2024 order. A-2238-24 2 note to repay Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. d/b/a Refinance.com
(Refinance) a $480,000.00 loan to purchase real property in West Orange, New
Jersey (the property). Defendant and Johnson-Turner then executed a mortgage
on the property with Refinance (the mortgage). The mortgage was recorded on
March 14, 2007. Refinance assigned the mortgage to Bayview Loan Servicing,
LLC (Bayview), and that assignment was recorded.
On February 27, 2020, defendant and Johnson-Turner executed a loan-
modification agreement revising the interest rate, monthly payment amount,
maturity date and principle balance owed. It is undisputed defendant and
Johnson-Turner defaulted in May 2020 and made no further payments under the
modified mortgage terms.
On June 25, 2022, Bayview assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. The
assignment was recorded four days later. On October 31, 2023, plaintiff sent a
notice of intent to foreclose (NOI), by certified mail, return receipt requested,
and by regular mail, to defendant's last known address and to the address of the
mortgaged property.
In February 2024, plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint in the Chancery
Division. Only defendant filed a contesting answer. Among other denials and
affirmative defenses, defendant contended plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose
A-2238-24 3 on the mortgage and asserted he had not received plaintiff's NOI.
A few months later, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant
did not oppose the motion. On August 28, 2024, the judge entered an order,
accompanied by a statement of reasons, granting summary judgment to plaintiff,
striking defendant's answer with prejudice and entering default. The order
permitted plaintiff to move for entry of an uncontested final judgment pursuant
to Rule 4:64.
In November 2024, defendant moved for reconsideration. After oral
argument, the judge denied the motion in a January 17, 2025 order. Although
defendant contended the parties had executed a "forbearance agreement," he did
not provide the judge with a copy of that document or any certification as to its
purported terms.2
While defendant's reconsideration motion was pending, plaintiff moved to
enter a final judgment of foreclosure. The judge adjourned that motion to
February 14, 2025, to allow defendant to file opposition. However, defendant
neither filed written opposition to plaintiff's motion nor appeared at oral
argument to contest the entry of final judgment. On February 18, 2025, the
judge entered a final judgment of foreclosure.
2 Nor is a copy of any "forbearance agreement" in defendant's appendix. A-2238-24 4 Defendant argues on appeal the judge erred in granting plaintiff summary
judgment, denying his motion for reconsideration and entering a final judgment
of foreclosure. Defendant contends the judge did not consider his forbearance
argument and erroneously concluded plaintiff's NOI comported with the Fair
Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:50-53 to -68.
II.
We review an order granting a summary judgment motion de novo,
applying the same standard used by the trial court. Boyle v. Huff, 257 N.J. 468,
477 (2024). Our review "is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine the truth
of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Rios
v. Media Pharm, Inc., 247 N.J. 1,13 (2021) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)). "An issue of fact is genuine only if,
considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the
parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring
the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact."
R. 4:46-2(c).
We review the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure for abuse of
discretion. Customers Bank v. Reitnour Inv. Props., LP, 453 N.J. Super. 338,
348 (App. Div. 2018). The same standard governs our review of an order
A-2238-24 5 deciding a reconsideration motion. In re Est. of Jones, 477 N.J. Super. 203, 216
(App. Div. 2023); see also Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment,
440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty.
Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)) ("An abuse of discretion 'arises when a
decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from
established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'") (internal quotation
marks omitted).
III.
Applying these standards, we affirm each of the orders defendant appeals.
In moving for summary judgment, plaintiff established it had standing to
foreclose through submission of a Rule 1:6-6-compliant certification of a
witness with personal knowledge, the note defendant had signed, the recorded
mortgage and the assignment to plaintiff. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v.
Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012). Because "[t]he only
material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of the mortgage, the
amount of indebtedness, and the right of the mortgagee to resort to the
mortgaged premises," we discern no error with the judge's order granting
summary judgment. Inv'rs Bank v. Torres, 457 N.J. Super. 53, 65 (App. Div.
2018) (quoting Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-2238-24
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DEMI TURNER, his heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and his/her, their, or any of their successors in right, title, and interest,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
ANTOINETTE JOHNSON-TURNER, her heirs, devisees and personal representatives, and his/her, their, or any of their successors in right, title, and interest, MRS. TURNER, wife of Demi Turner, MR. TURNER-JOHNSON, husband of Antoinette Turner-Johnson, PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE, individually and as subrogee of AMANDA M. LOPEZ, STATE OF NEW JERSEY and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants. ___________________________________
Submitted April 29, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026
Before Judges Gummer and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-001793-24.
Demi Turner, self-represented appellant.
Frenkel Lambert Weisman & Gordon, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Timothy Ziegler, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In this residential-mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Demi Turner
(defendant) appeals from an August 28, 2024 order1 granting summary judgment
to plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a January 17, 2025 order denying his
motion for reconsideration, and a February 18, 2025 final judgment of
foreclosure. Having reviewed the record, the parties' arguments, and applicable
law, we affirm all orders on appeal.
I.
On March 03, 2007, defendant and Antoinette Johnson-Turner executed a
1 In his notice of appeal, defendant indicated he was appealing from an August 30, 2024 order. Given the record, we understand he meant the August 28, 2024 order. A-2238-24 2 note to repay Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. d/b/a Refinance.com
(Refinance) a $480,000.00 loan to purchase real property in West Orange, New
Jersey (the property). Defendant and Johnson-Turner then executed a mortgage
on the property with Refinance (the mortgage). The mortgage was recorded on
March 14, 2007. Refinance assigned the mortgage to Bayview Loan Servicing,
LLC (Bayview), and that assignment was recorded.
On February 27, 2020, defendant and Johnson-Turner executed a loan-
modification agreement revising the interest rate, monthly payment amount,
maturity date and principle balance owed. It is undisputed defendant and
Johnson-Turner defaulted in May 2020 and made no further payments under the
modified mortgage terms.
On June 25, 2022, Bayview assigned the mortgage to plaintiff. The
assignment was recorded four days later. On October 31, 2023, plaintiff sent a
notice of intent to foreclose (NOI), by certified mail, return receipt requested,
and by regular mail, to defendant's last known address and to the address of the
mortgaged property.
In February 2024, plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint in the Chancery
Division. Only defendant filed a contesting answer. Among other denials and
affirmative defenses, defendant contended plaintiff lacked standing to foreclose
A-2238-24 3 on the mortgage and asserted he had not received plaintiff's NOI.
A few months later, plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Defendant
did not oppose the motion. On August 28, 2024, the judge entered an order,
accompanied by a statement of reasons, granting summary judgment to plaintiff,
striking defendant's answer with prejudice and entering default. The order
permitted plaintiff to move for entry of an uncontested final judgment pursuant
to Rule 4:64.
In November 2024, defendant moved for reconsideration. After oral
argument, the judge denied the motion in a January 17, 2025 order. Although
defendant contended the parties had executed a "forbearance agreement," he did
not provide the judge with a copy of that document or any certification as to its
purported terms.2
While defendant's reconsideration motion was pending, plaintiff moved to
enter a final judgment of foreclosure. The judge adjourned that motion to
February 14, 2025, to allow defendant to file opposition. However, defendant
neither filed written opposition to plaintiff's motion nor appeared at oral
argument to contest the entry of final judgment. On February 18, 2025, the
judge entered a final judgment of foreclosure.
2 Nor is a copy of any "forbearance agreement" in defendant's appendix. A-2238-24 4 Defendant argues on appeal the judge erred in granting plaintiff summary
judgment, denying his motion for reconsideration and entering a final judgment
of foreclosure. Defendant contends the judge did not consider his forbearance
argument and erroneously concluded plaintiff's NOI comported with the Fair
Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:50-53 to -68.
II.
We review an order granting a summary judgment motion de novo,
applying the same standard used by the trial court. Boyle v. Huff, 257 N.J. 468,
477 (2024). Our review "is not 'to weigh the evidence and determine the truth
of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Rios
v. Media Pharm, Inc., 247 N.J. 1,13 (2021) (quoting Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995)). "An issue of fact is genuine only if,
considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the
parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring
the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact."
R. 4:46-2(c).
We review the entry of a final judgment of foreclosure for abuse of
discretion. Customers Bank v. Reitnour Inv. Props., LP, 453 N.J. Super. 338,
348 (App. Div. 2018). The same standard governs our review of an order
A-2238-24 5 deciding a reconsideration motion. In re Est. of Jones, 477 N.J. Super. 203, 216
(App. Div. 2023); see also Pitney Bowes Bank, Inc. v. ABC Caging Fulfillment,
440 N.J. Super. 378, 382 (App. Div. 2015) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty.
Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)) ("An abuse of discretion 'arises when a
decision is made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from
established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis.'") (internal quotation
marks omitted).
III.
Applying these standards, we affirm each of the orders defendant appeals.
In moving for summary judgment, plaintiff established it had standing to
foreclose through submission of a Rule 1:6-6-compliant certification of a
witness with personal knowledge, the note defendant had signed, the recorded
mortgage and the assignment to plaintiff. See Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams. v.
Angeles, 428 N.J. Super. 315, 318 (App. Div. 2012). Because "[t]he only
material issues in a foreclosure proceeding are the validity of the mortgage, the
amount of indebtedness, and the right of the mortgagee to resort to the
mortgaged premises," we discern no error with the judge's order granting
summary judgment. Inv'rs Bank v. Torres, 457 N.J. Super. 53, 65 (App. Div.
2018) (quoting Great Falls Bank v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div.
A-2238-24 6 1993), aff'd, 273 N.J. Super. 542, (App. Div. 1994)). Defendant failed to meet
his burden as a mortgagor opposing plaintiff's summary judgment motion to
present facts controverting the mortgagee's prima facie case. Spiotta v. William
H. Wilson, Inc., 72 N.J. Super. 572, 581 (App. Div. 1962).
We are unconvinced by defendant's argument that plaintiff did not serve
a statutorily compliant NOI. In U.S. Bank National Association v. Guillaume,
209 N.J. 449, 470 (2012), our Supreme Court explained: "The [NOI] is a central
component of the FFA, serving the important legislative objective of providing
timely and clear notice to homeowners that immediate action is necessary to
forestall foreclosure." The FFA requires a residential mortgage lender to send
a NOI to foreclose to the defaulting borrower before filing a complaint. See
N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(a); EMC Mortg Corp. v. Chaudhri, 400 N.J. Super. 126, 137
(App. Div. 2008). The FFA provides the NOI must be "sent to the debtor by
registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at the debtor's last known
address, and, if different, to the address of the property which is the subject of
the residential mortgage." N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(b). The plain statutory language
states: "[t]he notice is deemed to have been effectuated on the date the notice is
delivered in person or mailed to the party." N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(b).
A-2238-24 7 Plaintiff established it sent a NOI to defendant in the manner required
under the FFA. Plaintiff's certification and appended postal tracking
demonstrated plaintiff sent the NOI on October 31, 2023, by certified mail,
return receipt requested, and by regular mail to defendant at the address of the
mortgaged property and to his last known address. Contrary to defendant's
argument, the FFA does not require proof of receipt of the NOI—the statute
requires only proof of mailing. Thus, we are unpersuaded plaintiff erred in
complying with the FAA's notice requirement.
Plaintiff faults the court for not examining the purported forbearance
agreement. Given the absence of a forbearance agreement in the record before
the court, we do not perceive any error on this basis.
To the extent we have not otherwise addressed plaintiff's arguments, it is
because they do not merit discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-2238-24 8