Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Etc. v. Jpm Aude Cooper Trust
This text of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Etc. v. Jpm Aude Cooper Trust (Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Etc. v. Jpm Aude Cooper Trust) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1280-24
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, d/b/a CHRISTIANA TRUST, not individually but as trustee for PRETIUM MORTGAGE ACQUISITION TRUST,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JPM AUDE COOPER TRUST, MRS. PETER Y. MARTIN, his wife, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RUSSELL HILES, minor, BETTY J. HILES, as guardian ad litem, LYNN F. SINGER, and BRETTLYNN MANAGEMENT, LLC, f/k/a PETE-MAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC,
Defendants,
and
PETER Y. MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant. ______________________________ Submitted June 3, 2026 – Decided June 26, 2026
Before Judges DeAlmeida and Torregrossa-O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket No. F- 011100-22.
Peter Y. Martin, self-represented appellant.
Parker McCay, PA, attorneys for respondent (Gene R. Mariano, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant Peter Y. Martin appeals from the December 20, 2024 order of
the Chancery Division denying his motion to set aside the sheriff's sale of
residential real property in this foreclosure matter. We affirm.
I.
On February 9, 2007, defendant executed a note in favor of Bank of
America in the amount of $336,000. He secured the note with a mortgage on
residential real property in Passaic County. After a series of transfers, the note
and mortgage were held by plaintiff Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB
d/b/a Christiana Trust, not individually but as Trustee for Pretium Mortgage
Acquisition Trust (WSFS). The note and mortgage were twice the subject of
loan modification agreements. Defendant defaulted on the note and mortgage
by failing to make the payment due on February 1, 2020.
A-1280-24 2 On October 17, 2022, WSFS filed a foreclosure complaint in the Chancery
Division. After WSFS filed an amended complaint, defendant filed a contesting
answer. He raised three affirmative defenses: (1) failure to effectuate service
of the complaint, claiming he received notice of the foreclosure action through
a third party; (2) WSFS was not the original lender; and (3) several service
providers handled his mortgage over the years.
On August 22, 2023, the court entered an order granting summary
judgment to WSFS, striking defendant's answer, and returning the matter to the
Office of Foreclosure as an uncontested matter. In a written decision
accompanying the order, the court found WSFS established each of the three
elements necessary to obtain a judgment of foreclosure. See Great Falls Bank
v. Pardo, 263 N.J. Super. 388, 394 (Ch. Div. 1993) (holding the 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). The court also rejected defendant's affirmative defenses, finding
WSFS effectuated service of the complaint on him, the transfer of the note and
mortgage to WSFS gave it standing to file the foreclosure complaint, and a
change in service providers is immaterial to WSFS's right to seek foreclosure.
A-1280-24 3 After denying a series of motions filed by defendant, the court, on July 1,
2024, entered final judgment in favor of WSFS. We affirmed the July 1, 2024
order. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc. v. JPM Aude Cooper Tr., Docket No. A-
3757-23 (App. Div. June 24, 2025). The Supreme Court denied defendant's
petition for certification. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc. v. JPM Aude Cooper Tr.,
263 N.J. 332 (2026).
The property was scheduled to be sold at a sheriff's sale on September 10,
2024, but defendant exercised his statutory adjournment rights. At the sheriff's
sale on November 12, 2024, the property was sold back to WSFS because no
bidder made an offer at or above the upset price of over $500,000.
On November 18, 2024, defendant moved to vacate the sale. He argued
the sale was invalid because the property was not sold at its highest and best
price. In addition, defendant alleged the sheriff's website did not list the name
of the purchaser or the amount for which the property was sold.
Defendant mailed a copy of the motion to an incorrect address and the
court-generated notice of the filing of the motion was sent to an attorney who
was no longer employed by WSFS's counsel. As a result, the motion was
considered unopposed.
A-1280-24 4 On December 20, 2024, the court denied the motion. In a written
statement of reasons, the court found:
The motion is denied, because although a court of equity can vacate a [s]heriff's sale, there must be a basis to do so. Here, the [d]efendant alleges "irregularities" in the sale, but in fact there were none. The sale took place and the [p]laintiff purchased the property. If there were bidders at the sale willing to bid the price higher, they would have done so. The defendant could have attended the sale to determine if there [were] truly any irregularities. The certification does not indicate that he did so, and the alleged "irregularities" do not exist.
This appeal followed.
Defendant argues: (1) the record lacks evidence of an executed sale of the
property; (2) the property was not sold at its highest and best price; (3) the sheriff
did not file an affidavit identifying the successful bidder; and (4) the court, when
denying his objection, did not issue an order confirming the sale was valid. 1
II.
We review a court's denial of a motion to vacate a sheriff's sale under an
abuse of discretion standard. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449,
467 (2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is "made without a
1 On April 28, 2026, we denied defendant's emergent request for an order staying his eviction from the property. A-1280-24 5 rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested
on an impermissible basis." Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123
(2007) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
Rule 4:65-5 governs motions to vacate a sheriff's sale. The rule allows
persons to file a "motion for the hearing of an objection to the sale . . . within
[ten] days after the sale or at any time thereafter before the delivery of the
conveyance." The court's authority to void a sheriff's sale "is discretionary and
must be based on considerations of equity and justice." First Tr. Nat'l Ass'n v.
Merola, 319 N.J. Super. 44, 49 (App. Div. 1999). A court may grant equitable
relief to set aside a sheriff's sale when irregularities occur in the conduct of the
sale, such as fraud, accident, mistake, or surprise. Orange Land Co. v. Bender,
96 N.J. Super. 158, 164 (App. Div. 1967).
In response to a motion to vacate a sheriff's sale, "the court may summarily
dispose of the objection; and if it approves the sale and is satisfied that the real
estate was sold at its highest and best price at the time of the sale, it may confirm
the sale as valid and effectual . . . ." R. 4:65-5. When a timely objection is made
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Etc. v. Jpm Aude Cooper Trust, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilmington-savings-fund-society-fsb-etc-v-jpm-aude-cooper-trust-njsuperctappdiv-2026.