Credit: Bigstock
On July 1, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued a unanimous opinion in Investors Bank v. Javier Torres, Docket Number A-55-18, which served to clarify and confirm the right of an assignee to enforce a mortgage note that has been lost by its predecessor. The court found that plaintiff, the assignee of defendants’ mortgage and transferee of the related note, had the right to enforce the note under New Jersey law. This holding settles the issue and allows lenders, their assignees, and borrowers to proceed in future cases without uncertainty over the impact of a lost note, provided certain proofs are available and submitted by the foreclosing plaintiff.
The facts in Torres were straightforward. CitiMortgage had lost the original promissory note (Note) signed by defendant Javier Torres, who had also executed a residential mortgage (Mortgage) with his wife, defendant Dora M. Dillman. CitiMortgage discovered the Note was missing after Torres defaulted under the Note’s terms. CitiMortgage had a digital copy of the Note in its business records, which set forth the terms of the Note.
This content has been archived.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]
