Approximately one year ago, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449 (2012), which settled the uncertainty surrounding the appropriate remedy available to a trial court when faced with a plaintiff in a foreclosure action who has failed to serve a "notice of intention to foreclose" in compliance with the Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA), N.J.S.A. 2A:50-5368. The court in Guillaume overruled case law holding that dismissal without prejudice was the sole remedy available to a trial court where the lender has failed to serve a compliant notice of intention, and declared that courts of equity should exercise their inherent equitable powers and discretion to fashion appropriate remedies under such circumstances.
A recent unreported decision by a New Jersey Chancery Court, Salierno v. Kosky, BER-F-10013-12 (Ch. Div. Jan. 22, 2013), which declined to dismiss a foreclosure complaint where the lender completely failed to serve a notice of intention to foreclose, may be interpreted as an expansion of the court’s holding in Guillaume, further eroding the impact of a common defense raised by defendants in foreclosure actions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
