Main Contents

NEW JERSEY JUDGE HITS IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD AS TO FORECLOSURE DEFENSE, TELLING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL THAT THEY ARE “ATTEMPTING TO MARGINALIZE A COMPLEX ISSUE”

February 22, 2010

February 22, 2010

As those of you who follow this website are aware, FDN attorneys Jeff Barnes, Esq. and Michael Jacobson, Esq. are extremely active in defending foreclosure cases in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Barnes is also assisted by attorneys Jeffrey L. Gold, Esq. and Kenneth C. Marano, Esq. as to cases in Northern New Jersey and where Mr. Jacobson is not able to assist.

Mr. Barnes has been admitted pro hac vice in the cases in New Jersey where he works with local counsel. It is no secret that FDN attorneys have consistently obtained results for borrowers in many different counties in New Jersey. Apparently that does not sit well with at least one New Jersey foreclosure mill which represents foreclosing plaintiffs. The plaintiff’s firm actually filed a formal opposition to Mr. Barnes’ recent request to be admitted pro hac vice in a case before a Judge who had previously admitted Mr. Barnes in another case. As such applications are routinely granted (especially as the clients have the right to the counsel of their choosing), there was really no cause to oppose the admission request. Mr. Barnes filed a Supplemental Certification setting forth his significant national experience in foreclosure defense issues including but not limited to the authority, legality, and effect of purported MERS assignments, which is a central issue in the case.

Plaintiff’s counsel, who filed the opposition, appeared by telephone. The Judge rejected the opposition and granted the Motion to admit Mr. Barnes, telling the Plaintiff’s attorney that his attempt to constrict the borrowers’ legal representation in view of the numerous issues in the case (including those related to MERS) was an attempt to “marginalize a very complex issue”.

We could not have said it better. Several of the New Jersey judiciary have now recognized (with at least one opinion in writing) that the issues relating to securitization, MERS assignments, and the like are significant issues in and of themselves, and are not to be taken lightly. As those of you who regularly read this site are also aware, several courts in Oregon and Idaho have also recently recognized that foreclosure is not as simple as the servicers, trustees of securitized mortgage loan trusts, and their ilk either think it is or want the judiciary to think it is.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www/ForeclosureDefenseNationwide.com
Foreclosure Defense Webinars
Click here for More Information

Filed under: Uncategorized |

Leave a comment

Login