One by one I see the traditional foreclosure defenses fall by the wayside as sensible judges laser in on common sense and the real issue at hand. The borrower breached the terms of the note, and that gives the holder /agent the right of redress through foreclosure of the note and forfeiture of the collateral to auction to discharge the note. Judges are getting sick and tired of the delaying tactics, and that explains why so many of them yearn for non-judicial foreclosure processes that amount to a confessed judgment against the borrower who defaults on the loan and quickly give the lender remedy without costly litigation and delays.
Read it and weep, Pretender Defenders. The writing is on the wall. Watch this spread to other states.
Indymac Bank, FSB V. Decastro, NJ: Appellate Div. 2013(“we now have made clear that lack of standing is not a meritorious defense to a foreclosure complaint. Russo, supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 101 (holding that “standing is not a jurisdictional issue in our State court system and, therefore, a foreclosure judgment obtained by a party that lacked standing is not ‘void’ within the meaning of Rule 4:50-1(d)”). Furthermore, even if there were filing deficiencies, as alleged here, dismissal of the complaint is not necessarily the appropriate remedy.Guillaume, supra, 209 N.J. at 475. Based on the foregoing, DeCastro’s standing challenge is rejected because lack of standing would not void the final judgment.