Townhomes at St. Regis Walk Association, Inc. v. Marcia Copeland

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: A-3799-23
• Status: Unpublished

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3799-23

TOWNHOMES AT ST. REGIS WALK ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MARCIA COPELAND,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________

Submitted November 20, 2025 – Decided February 10, 2026

Before Judges Marczyk and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Gloucester County, Docket No. F- 005961-20.

Marcia Copeland, self-represented appellant.

McGovern Legal Services, LLC, attorneys for respondent (Andrew L. Unterlack, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Defendant Marcia Copeland appeals from the Chancery Division's July

19, 2024 order granting additional payment to plaintiff Townhomes at St. Regis

Walk Association, Inc. We affirm.

I.

Plaintiff is a homeowners association governed by a recorded declaration

of covenants, conditions and restrictions, and by-laws. Owners of property in

the association must contribute to common expenses, pay annual and special

assessments, and are responsible for interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs,

and late charges, all of which become both a personal obligation and a

continuing lien on the property. If an owner fails to pay assessments, plaintiff

is authorized to foreclose against the property and to recover all sums due.

In 1994, defendant acquired an investment property in the association,

which was subject to the association's governing documents. In August 2018,

plaintiff recorded a claim of lien for $12,083.95 against defendant's property ,

which it amended to $17,182.42 in February 2020, reflecting unpaid

assessments, late fees, legal charges, and collection costs levied in accordance

with the governing documents. Defendant failed to pay certain amounts due,

and the unpaid balance continued to accrue monthly assessments, late fees, and

legal fees. As of June 4, 2024, defendant's outstanding balance was $36,727.80.

A-3799-23 2 On May 7, 2020, plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint, followed by an

amended complaint. A process server attempted personal service three times:

May 28, June 1, and June 15, 2020, but no one answered at the property. On

June 30, 2020, plaintiff mailed the complaint by first-class mail and certified

mail, return receipt requested. The certified mail was returned to sender as

unclaimed, but the concurrent first-class mailing was not returned. Defendant

did not answer the foreclosure complaint.

Plaintiff first sought entry of default against defendant on October 30,

2020, and again on November 19, 2020, but both applications were denied for

lack of required proofs of service. On December 4, 2020, plaintiff resubmitted

a request to enter default with the process server's affidavit and evidence of

attempted certified mailing.

Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees and costs, which defendant opposed.

The court awarded $3,340.30 to plaintiff by order dated February 19, 2021.

On March 18, 2021, plaintiff moved for final judgment, supported by

certifications, itemized account records, and proof of claimed amounts totaling

$16,030.30 ($12,690 in lien assessments plus $3,340.30 in attorneys' fees and

costs per court order). Plaintiff mailed the notice and supporting documentation

by first-class and certified mail, return receipt requested. Defendant did not

A-3799-23 3 oppose the motion. On April 13, 2021, the court entered an uncontested final

judgment and writ of execution, authorizing a sheriff's sale.

Pandemic restrictions delayed the sheriff's sale, and in March 2022,

plaintiff moved for additional assessments, late fees, and legal expenses incurred

post-judgment. Defendant did not oppose the motion. On April 14, 2022, the

court ordered an additional $5,343.50 to be paid from the proceeds of any

foreclosure sale.

In June 2024, plaintiff moved for additional sums incurred after the last

order, supported by certifications of counsel and management, invoices, and an

account ledger showing defendant's continued delinquency. Defendant did not

oppose the motion.

On July 19, 2024, the court granted the motion and directed payment of

$8,483.18 in additional advances from the sale proceeds, including $4,590 in

assessments (April 2022 to June 2024), $650 in late fees, $42.50 for a trash

violation fine, and $3,200.68 in legal fees. On July 29, 2024, defendant sought

emergent relief to stay the sheriff's sale, which was denied.

II.

On July 29, 2024, defendant filed a notice of appeal from the April 13,

2021 final judgment. Her September 10, 2024 amended notice of appeal added

A-3799-23 4 the July 19, 2024 order for additional sums. In the ensuing motion practice, we

limited defendant's appeal to the July 19, 2024 order because her notice of

appeal from the April 13, 2021 judgment was over three years late.

Despite our repeated circumscription of this appeal to the order for

additional sums, defendant's merits brief does not address that order. Instead, it

challenges other orders entered in the foreclosure matter, discusses due process,

standing to sue, and jurisdiction, and alleges fraud upon the court, real estate

fraud, wrongful/illegal foreclosure, breach of contract, and miscarriage of

justice.

Defendant did not oppose the motion for additional sums; therefore, these

issues are raised for the first time on appeal. We ordinarily decline to consider

an issue not properly presented to the trial court unless the jurisdiction of the

court is implicated or the matter concerns an issue of great public importance.

Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973). Neither circumstance

is present in this matter.

Defendant's brief also does not address the order on appeal. "An issue not

briefed on appeal is deemed waived." 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 (App. Div. 2011)). Although the issue is deemed waived,

A-3799-23 5 we note plaintiff was entitled to fees and costs under its declaration and by-laws,

and its motion was supported by certifications and documentation for the

requested amounts. We therefore discern no abuse of discretion in the order for

additional sums.

Affirmed.

A-3799-23 6