Wilmington Savings Fund Society, Fsb, Etc. v. Walter Schoenefeld, Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: July 10, 2026
• Docket: A-1667-24
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1667-24

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, not individually, but solely as Trustee for Residential Mortgage Aggregation Trust,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WALTER SCHOENEFELD, his/her heirs, devisees, and personal representatives, and his/her/their, or any of their successors in right, title and interest,

Defendant-Appellant. ____________________________________

Argued April 30, 2026 ‒ Decided July 10, 2026

Before Judges Marczyk and Bishop-Thompson.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, Docket No. F-009457-23.

Michael H. Nieschmidt argued the cause for appellant. Emmanuel J. Argentieri argued the cause for respondent (Romano Garubo & Argentieri, Counselors at Law, LLC, attorneys; Emmanuel J. Argentieri, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant Walter Schoenefeld appeals from the January 21, 2025 order

denying his motion to stay the January 22, 2025 sheriff's sale, and ordering the

sheriff's sale on January 22, 2025. We affirm.

In July 2007, defendant executed an adjustable rate note in the principal

amount of $585,000 in favor of Chase Bank USA, NA for property located in

Princeton, which was recorded. The mortgage and note were successively

assigned: in 2009 to Chase Home Finance LLC; then to JPMorgan Chase Bank,

N.A.; in 2014 to PennyMac Holdings, LLC; in 2018 to Citibank, N.A., as trustee

for CMLTI Asset Trust; in 2019 to NYMT Loan Trust I; and in 2023, to plaintiff

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as trustee for Residential Mortgage

Aggregation Trust (Wilmington). Each assignment was duly recorded in the

county clerk's office.

Defendant first executed a loan modification with PennyMac, setting a

new principal amount of $759,000. In 2019, he entered into a loan modification

with Fay Servicing LLC (Fay Servicing) as attorney in fact for Wilmington,

d/b/a Christiana Trust, solely as trustee for NYMT Loan Trust I, reflecting an

A-1667-24 2 unpaid balance of $950,182.68. As of May 2022, defendant defaulted on the

note and mortgage.

Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint, resulting in a judgment of

foreclosure for $1,011,174.32, plus $8,324 in taxed costs. The sheriff's sale was

originally scheduled to occur in December 2024, but was stayed until January 9,

2025.

After defendant moved to stay the sheriff's sale, the court held a status

conference on January 5, 2025, to determine whether the stay should remain in

effect. During that conference, defendant appeared self-represented via Zoom,

while counsel appeared for plaintiff. Defendant claimed to have made $57,000

or $59,000 in payments to Fay Servicing and stated he had sufficient funds to

bring the loan current and cure the default. He further asserted he had paid

$67,000 since mid-2022. The court directed defendant to provide proof of these

payments to plaintiff's counsel. Another status conference was scheduled for

January 21 via Zoom, and the stay of the sheriff's sale was extended to January

22.

On January 21, despite receiving a Zoom link, defendant did not attend

the status conference or provide an explanation for his absence. Defendant also

did not submit any documentation to the court showing payments made to Fay

A-1667-24 3 Servicing or plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel advised the court, as of December

2024, the reinstatement amount due exceeded $140,000 and defendant had paid

only $42,000, which was insufficient to reinstate the loan. The court allowed

the sheriff's sale to proceed the following afternoon, and the property was sold.

On January 22, defendant filed another motion to stay the sheriff's sale;

however, it was not filed by the court until January 23. The court denied

defendant's motion and the property was sold to a third party.

On appeal, defendant contends the court erred in failing to timely schedule

the motion for disposition prior to the sheriff's sale, asserting he filed the motion

on January 22, but the court did not mark it as filed until January 23. He argues

he was denied the opportunity to address and dispose of factual issues despite

timely filing the motion. We are unpersuaded.

We review an order denying a request to stay a sheriff's sale for abuse of

discretion. See Waste Mgmt. of N.J., Inc. v. Morris Cnty. Mun. Utils. Auth.,

433 N.J. Super. 445, 451 (App. Div. 2013). "A court abuses its discretion when

its decision is made without rational explanation, inexplicably departed from

established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." Pine Ridge Realty

Assocs., LLC v. A.O., 483 N.J. Super. 487, 492 (App. Div. 2026) (quoting State

v. Chavies, 247 N.J. 245, 257 (2021)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A-1667-24 4 However, we review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo. Hopson v. Cirz,

482 N.J. Super. 232, 251 (App. Div. 2025).

An applicant seeking stay relief must demonstrate: denial of the stay

would result in irreparable harm; a likelihood of prevailing on the merits based

on settled law; and a balancing of equities favors stay relief. Garden State Equal.

v. Dow, 216 N.J. 314, 320 (2013); see also Crowe v. De Gioia, 90 N.J. 126, 132-

34 (1982). "[T]hese factors must be clearly and convincingly demonstrated."

Waste Mgmt. of N.J., Inc., 433 N.J. Super. at 452 (citing Waste Mgmt. of N.J.,

Inc. v. Union Cnty. Utils. Auth.,399 N.J. Super. 508, 520 (App. Div. 2008)).

Defendant has not presented any competent evidence, nor has he

demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence his likely success on the

merits—that is, the payment of the required sum to bring the loan current and

cure the default. Moreover, defendant was provided with the opportunity to

submit proofs, and he did not do so. We are therefore satisfied the court did not

misapply its discretion in denying a stay.

We decline to address defendant's arguments, raised for the first time on

appeal, regarding the substantial disparity in the required sum to reinstate the

loan, as well as his claims about the court's failure to contact him or plaintiff's

prior counsel during the status conference. It is well established we do not

A-1667-24 5 "consider questions or issues not properly presented to the trial court when an

opportunity for such a presentation is available 'unless the questions . . . raised

on appeal go to the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great

public interest.'" Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973)

(quoting Reynolds Offset Co. v. Summer, 58 N.J. Super. 542, 548 (App. Div.

1959)). Defendant's arguments do not satisfy either exception.

Affirmed.

A-1667-24 6