Foreclosure Timeline in NJ

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
that is the wording they used in their notice of motion to correct metadata

the actual proposed order just says "order correcting metadata"
on this day...."that the clerk make the necessary corrections manually: change case type from OP foreclosure to a residential/traditional foreclosure"

they have known all along we are living here - OP also allows for underwater homes i realize that, but i am just surmising that the reason why there has been little info on OP is because maybe they are more commonly used for abandonment...

ETA
i would not be objecting to moving forward with traditional foreclosure - i was thinking there may be an in with objecting to the change, and attempting a motion to dismiss? :)
their moves seem like they are trying to clean up some mess, and it seems obvious that the court is guiding them out of it.... just wondering if there is a way to capitalize on it

I answered some other things in the post in reply to wanda robo - thanks for your interest!
Read about metadata on page 12.

https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2017/n170802b.pdf

Good luck to you.
.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
No, you know Wanda & I are here. For whatever reason, people in NJ have either given up hope or never had hope - despite us being one of the highest foreclosure states. I won't be in NJ soon since I will be moving in the new year.

For certain, NJ court rulings can deter confidence. Even when homeowners have counsel, the crooked judges find for the banks. For a while, we had quite a few homeowners on this thread.
.

I found a case that has an affidavit attached to the Motion to Enter Final Judgment. F-047750-09. It's a shame he didn't participate in defending because he did have a meritorious defense. His Note was never endorsed in blank or to Goshen Mortgage. It's still made payable to the originating lender Chase.

1st Affidavit I've ever seen.

Well, today's the last day to comment on the Proposed Rule Amendments. I sure hope my email campaign spurred enough people to make some noise regarding the proposed change to 4:64-2...…..
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
this is interesting, they want it out of public view! hmmmm
thanks a lot - i appreciate your help
Are you familiar with metadata in general?

If not, metadata is hidden information (or codes) in html docs that reveal other information about the creation of the doc that is not seen within the doc itself when it is viewed.

For example, if you use Yahoo email, if you open a message, then click on the 3 blue dots at the top right of the message, and then click "view raw message", you will see the metadata for that email. Within that email metadata, you will find details not seen in the normal view of the email. For example, you could find from what IP address the email was sent, the address of any blind recipients, the true email address for someone who sent the email using a fake address, when the email was viewed by the recipient, and much more. I have often looked at the metadata for emails.

And for Word 2007, you can check (remove) metadata by going to file→prepare→inspect document. Metadata is also visible in the pdf after it is converted from Word.

It appears the court is basically saying that with the advent of ecourts, documents may have hidden metadata that might reveal personal information about parties that has nothing to do with what is seen in the actual document. The court wants that data removed.
.
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
I found a case that has an affidavit attached to the Motion to Enter Final Judgment. F-047750-09. It's a shame he didn't participate in defending because he did have a meritorious defense. His Note was never endorsed in blank or to Goshen Mortgage. It's still made payable to the originating lender Chase.

1st Affidavit I've ever seen.

Well, today's the last day to comment on the Proposed Rule Amendments. I sure hope my email campaign spurred enough people to make some noise regarding the proposed change to 4:64-2...…..
Well, as we know, the mill can count on 90% of us not paying that complaint any attention.

I'm sure there will be lots of comments from the other side.
.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
It's very sad. It makes me very sad.

My journey hasn't been easy, but it's been worth it, in case anyone is wondering.

Right now I'm trying to figure out how the "NJ Supremes" want their filings, to be bound. It's going to cost me a fortune, but I'll do it. I'll see it to its end.

That's the hard part, they try to wear us down, at every turn.

I'm sure the "foreclosure bar" has plenty of power. I have power, too. I'm opting to go back to the OAE, vs the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, re: my Federal Case. False filings must not be the basis for foreclosure. Interesting to note, 4 out of the 5 offending attorneys, no longer work for Stern & Eisenberg. They've become "slip & fall" lawyers....I'd rather they lose their licenses vs me getting money.

It's not about the money, it's about right vs wrong. In my case, it's about the use of "past tense verbs" vs present tense.

The Note was endorsed in blank. Well, the reality is, the Note IS NO LONGER endorsed in blank.

Please pray for me. It would be such an honor to argue in the Supreme Court of NJ.

Good Lord, give me strength. I need you now, more than ever.

As if I haven't said it before, I'm so thankful for loansafe. It's saved me so many times, I can't even count them.

Happy Holidays, To All.
 

mattimay

LoanSafe Member
Jan 8, 2012
12
0
1
nj
Are you familiar with metadata in general?
yes i am and i understand the true point to "correcting metadata" but it looks like they are using something as inconspicuous as "correcting metadata" to actually remove something else, because the proposed order is called "order to correct metadata" but the wording of the order is that the "clerk make the necessary following corrections manually: change the case type from an OP (no sale) Foreclosure to a residential/traditional foreclosure procedure"

nothing about hiding personal information. It leads me to believe that they do not want something revealed about their OP attempt, because they did something wrong. I know that the process is very shady, in fact its totally flawed, if you read the rule on optional procedure, giving the plaintiff very loose guidelines. I asked the court for clarity on the procedure and the courts gave me the slip, no call back, no email back, "the computers are down" when i phoned, then boom - the plaintiff withdraws 2 counts and puts forth this motion.

i deal with the courts when I have to, so my knowledge is limited, i fight whatever comes my way... and i know enough that something is OFF about it... but since there is so little about optional procedure it is very difficult to pin point it... perhaps they need the whole OP scrubbed because there is something that could hold water in appeal.
thanks for your time!
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
yes i am and i understand the true point to "correcting metadata" but it looks like they are using something as inconspicuous as "correcting metadata" to actually remove something else, because the proposed order is called "order to correct metadata" but the wording of the order is that the "clerk make the necessary following corrections manually: change the case type from an OP (no sale) Foreclosure to a residential/traditional foreclosure procedure"

nothing about hiding personal information. It leads me to believe that they do not want something revealed about their OP attempt, because they did something wrong. I know that the process is very shady, in fact its totally flawed, if you read the rule on optional procedure, giving the plaintiff very loose guidelines. I asked the court for clarity on the procedure and the courts gave me the slip, no call back, no email back, "the computers are down" when i phoned, then boom - the plaintiff withdraws 2 counts and puts forth this motion.

i deal with the courts when I have to, so my knowledge is limited, i fight whatever comes my way... and i know enough that something is OFF about it... but since there is so little about optional procedure it is very difficult to pin point it... perhaps they need the whole OP scrubbed because there is something that could hold water in appeal.
thanks for your time!
Ok. Then I just can't imagine what's going on. Maybe time will tell.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattimay

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
Just read in a NJ report on foreclosures that, "The average time to judgment in the first eight months of 2018 was 114 days." Down from 1360 days in 2011 and 238 days in 2017.

With the recommended changes to the court rules, this timeframe will decrease even more. NJ is on a mission to place homes back in the hands of lenders ASAP.

New Jerseyans really must be alert.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattimay

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
Just read in a NJ report on foreclosures that, "The average time to judgment in the first eight months of 2018 was 114 days." Down from 1360 days in 2011 and 238 days in 2017.

With the recommended changes to the court rules, this timeframe will decrease even more. NJ is on a mission to place homes back in the hands of lenders ASAP.

New Jerseyans really must be alert.
.
My friend, I tried to tell you, when I was in open court in 2014, the word was handed down. Now Appellate Judge Suter, stated that foreclosures "shall be" moved on within 12 months, when she was a "General Equity" judge. The Office of Foreclosure sent the word down.
We're in big trouble & quite frankly, no on seems to care, but a rare few...….
 
  • Like
Reactions: mattimay

Javagold

LoanSafe Member
Mar 2, 2012
167
13
18
Just read in a NJ report on foreclosures that, "The average time to judgment in the first eight months of 2018 was 114 days." Down from 1360 days in 2011 and 238 days in 2017.

With the recommended changes to the court rules, this timeframe will decrease even more. NJ is on a mission to place homes back in the hands of lenders ASAP.

New Jerseyans really must be alert.
.

Wow. 4 months seems hard to believe that NJ can handle. No matter how corrupt this cesspool is.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
Well the comments are posted. I think we DID IT!!! Not one favorable comment on amending Rule 4:64-2. NOT ONE!!!

Thank you so much for everyone that posted a comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just_me

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
Sad, sad day in New Jersey. The Supreme Court went ahead and changed the Court Rules. 4:64-2 was amended even though the Committee NEVER recommended the adopted changes AND not ONE comment to the proposed changes by the public was in favor of this change. The fix certainly is in. Many thanks to those of you who tried to help me.

https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190502d.pdf?c=HJs

I'm guessing my next "blow" will also be handed down the NJ Supremes by denying my Petition for Certification.....I may just pull out the papers to go all the way to SCOTUS.
 

PatZZ

LoanSafe Member
Jan 30, 2011
2,026
157
63
Nearby
Sad, sad day in New Jersey. The Supreme Court went ahead and changed the Court Rules. 4:64-2 was amended even though the Committee NEVER recommended the adopted changes AND not ONE comment to the proposed changes by the public was in favor of this change. The fix certainly is in. Many thanks to those of you who tried to help me.

https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190502d.pdf?c=HJs

I'm guessing my next "blow" will also be handed down the NJ Supremes by denying my Petition for Certification.....I may just pull out the papers to go all the way to SCOTUS.
We had discussed this at one point. They did ask for comments on this change. The suggested amendments were done in 2 stages. In this Nov 14, 2018 publication, it included the change at 4:64-2.

https://njcourts.gov/notices/2018/n181418h.pdf
.
 

wanda robo

LoanSafe Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,823
594
113
NJ
We had discussed this at one point. They did ask for comments on this change. The suggested amendments were done in 2 stages. In this Nov 14, 2018 publication, it included the change at 4:64-2.

https://njcourts.gov/notices/2018/n181418h.pdf
.
And you never commented, unless you're name is Michael Clinton because that's the only person I can't account for. They did ask for comments and not only did I comment, I got others to. What exactly did you do? Please, point me to it.
 

Jeffrey L. Shurtliff

LoanSafe Member
Dec 4, 2010
3,806
137
63
I live in NJ we had a Countrywide mortage in 2006 that was sold to BOA. In December of 2010 we had to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy due to the downturn of the economy. BOA was suppose to reaffirm our mortgage debt, but never did. Once we relized that our mortgage was discharged in our bankrupcy we stopped making payments. It has been 12 months since we have made a payment. We have not received a default notice, and have only recently been offered $3000 for a Deed in lieu Foreclosure. Does anyone know the timeline for us to receive a foreclosure notice? I have friends in NJ that have gone 2-3 years without making a mortgage payment and they have still not received a foreclosure notice. Also, once a foreclose notice has been received how long does it take to go through the court system? I have also heard that if the bank does not posess the proper paperwork for the property, that the NJ court system cannot foreclosure. Is this true?
NJ is a Judicial Forclosure State. You will be served with a court date. May take a long time.