September 9, 2014

A New Jersey Chancery Judge has denied Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where there are five (5) “Assignment of Mortgage” documents, all on different dates, and all cited by WF in its Complaint. WF has requested that the Court declare that 3 of the Assignments are void and of no effect. Essentially, WF wants to pick and choose which Assignments fit its theory of inheriting an interest in the Note and Mortgage, but without any legal basis for making such a novel request.

The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and Michael Jacobson, Esq. of the Cooper Levenson Firm in Atlantic City, NJ. Mr. Barnes prepared the legal briefing and argued the matter last Friday, September 5.

The first assignment was by MERS from the original lender to EMC Mortgage, which was a subsidiary of the long-defunct Bear Stearns. WF likes this and the 4th Assignment, which is from EMC to WF. However, EMC was long out of business as of the time of the 4th Assignment, and there is no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage traveled the five different paths per the five different Assignments. WF also presented no law which permits a court to disregard any assignment in favor of another, so that the “chosen” assignments fit the theory of transfer of the foreclosing party.

In his oral disposition of the motion, the Judge stated “I wish this Note could talk to us”, to explain how it went from the original lender to WF. Unfortunately, the Note cannot, and WF presented no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage physically traveled from the original lender to WF.

Summary judgment was denied. The Court also made note of a loan modification to the borrower which was signed by MERS, which was curious as MERS is not a lender and does not have the authority to modify a loan.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www/