NJ Supreme Court Fair Foreclosure Act Decision

Posted by kevin on March 4, 2012 under Foreclosure Blog | Comments are off for this article

Since November, we have awaited anxiously for the NJ Supreme Court decision US Bank, NA v. Guillaume. This was touted to be the definitive ruling on the Notice of Intent to Foreclose (NOI) requirements under the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA). Well, the decision was released this week.

The FFA requires the mortgage lender to send to the mortgage debtors an NOI prior to filing a foreclosure complaint relating to a residential mortgage. The NOI statute states that the notice must contain 11 different points of information. One of the critical points of information is the name and address of the Lender. However, the FFA does not say what the penalty should be if the mortgage lender fails to comply with the NOI requirements.

There have been 5 major cases dealing with the NOI requirement before Guillaume. The first decision indicated that substantial compliance was good enough (in other words, you did not have to include all 11 items of information). Under this case, the plaintiff could leave out the name and address of the lender. Decisions 2-5 said that you had to strictly comply; that is, you had to include the name and address of the lender. One case seems to suggest that dismissal of the complaint was not necessary for a violation (Frankly, it is not clear to me what that court was saying on this issue). Two cases said that dismissal without prejudice was appropriate but not necessary. The fifth case said dismissal with prejudice was mandatory. Dismissal was the remedy favored by borrowers.

Because the decisions on the remedy for a violation of the NOI requirements were not uniform, judges were coming down with different decisions based on the same facts. Whether the case was dismissed, in effect, depended on which judge was assigned the case. This is not good.

In Guillaume, the borrowers sat on their rights for the better part of 16 months, a default judgment had been entered against them, and a sheriff’s sale had been scheduled. That is when the Guillaumes finally retained an attorney. (Message to all readers-that is a big mistake.) On a motion to set aside the default judgment, it was argued that the plaintiff failed to comply with the NOI requirements. The trial court refused to dismiss, and told the plaintiff to send out a revised notice which included the name and address of the lender. Two revised notices were sent but both were deficient. Still the trial court would not vacate the default or dismiss the case. The appellate level decision in Guillaume said substantial compliance was good enough. If plaintiff gave the name of the servicer, it satisfied the purpose of the statute. That decision did not even mention the 5 major cases on the issue.

The case went up to the Supreme Court. The lenders, in effect, put all new foreclosures on hold, pending the decision of the Supreme Court. Attorneys for both sides were happy that the Supreme Court was finally going to decide what the remedy for a FFA violation was. Good or bad, we would have a definitive decision and be able to advise our clients.

The Supreme Court held that a lender must strictly comply with the NOI requirements- in other words, the notice had to include the name and address of the lender. That was definitive. Then, the Court said that since the Legislature did not provide a remedy, they would consider the appropriate remedy. So far, so good. Then, the Court said that foreclosures are decided by chancery judges. In the old days, chancery courts were called courts of equity. Traditionally equity allowed judges wide flexibility in making their rulings based on the specific facts before them. So in keeping with this tradition,, the Supreme Court said that if there was an NOI violation, the judges were free to shape their own remedies as long as they did not abuse their discretion.

What does that mean in practical terms? Judge A could decide to dismiss. Judge B could decide to stay the case for 30 days so that a new NOI could be sent. Judge C could decide something different. As long as the given judge does not abuse his or her discretion, the ruling cannot be overturned on appeal. No clarity.

So, we waited a decade to get a definitive decision on the NOI requirement, and did not get a definitive decision. That is disappointing.