Are you looking for the
BEST BANKRUPTCY LAWYER
in New Jersey?
So you just found it, call now (201) 646-3333.
Or visit our websites for more information:
We are located at 259 Union St. Hackensack NJ 07601
Friday, December 11, 2020
MORTGAGE ARTICLE - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK NJ (201) 646-3333
MORTGAGE ARTICLE
v.
GINA GENELLO and FRANK GENELLO, Defendants-Appellants, and
PALISADE COLLECTION, Defendant.
No. A-1297-16T2.
Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Submitted March 13, 2018.
Decided June 1, 2018.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-045130-08.
Dunne, Dunne & Cohen, LLC, attorneys for appellants (Frederick R. Dunne, III, of counsel and on the brief).
Knuckles Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, attorneys for respondent (John E. Brigandi, on the brief).
Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Dunne, Dunne & Cohen, LLC, attorneys for appellants (Frederick R. Dunne, III, of counsel and on the brief).
Knuckles Komosinski & Manfro, LLP, attorneys for respondent (John E. Brigandi, on the brief).
Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
My name is Nelson Rosado and my lawyer Rafael Gomez represented me today in court and saved my license. I was basically 19 points and he reduced it to 4 points so I thank you very much and I recommend you guys to get him as your lawyer. Thanks
Defendants Gina and Frank Genello (defendants) appeal from an October 21, 2016 Chancery Division order denying their motion to vacate the sheriff's sale of their home, which occurred on September 13, 2016. Because they did not receive notice of the adjourned date of the sheriff's sale, defendants argue the trial court decision constituted an abuse of discretion and resulted in "a miscarriage of justice." We affirm.
On May 31, 2007, Gina Genello executed a promissory note to plaintiff Emigrant Mortgage Company (Emigrant) for $383,500, and defendants secured the loan with a non-purchase money mortgage on their home in West Caldwell. Beginning in June 2008, defendants stopped making their monthly payments under the note and mortgage. Emigrant filed a foreclosure action on November 13, 2008, after defendants failed to cure their default. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaim.
On September 16, 2010, the parties entered into a forbearance agreement, whereby defendants withdrew their answer and counterclaim with prejudice, allowing the foreclosure to proceed uncontested in exchange for a six-month stay of the foreclosure proceedings. The agreement provided for an additional three-month stay if defendants found a buyer for their home. The agreement did not require defendants to make regular monthly payments, only monthly escrow payments. Thereafter, the court dismissed the case, assuming it had settled.
Emigrant then filed a motion to restore the action. Defendants opposed the motion, which the court granted on March 21, 2016, but on the condition that Emigrant not seek default interest when it applied for final judgment.
On December 4, 2014, Emigrant filed a motion for final judgment. On July 22, 2015, the court entered final judgment against defendants for $673,220.99 and ordered the sale of the property. Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on August 7, 2015. Defendants appealed from the final judgment and order denying reconsideration, and we affirmed. Emigrant Mortg. Co. v. Genello, No. A-0292-15 (App. Div. Dec. 2, 2016).
On May 26, 2014, Emigrant sent correspondence to defendants advising of the sheriff's sale date. Defendants requested two adjournments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:17-36, which postponed the sale until July 5, 2016. On that date, defendants filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, resulting in another postponement of the sheriff's sale. A lack of supporting documentation lead to the dismissal of defendants' bankruptcy proceeding, and the rescheduling of the sheriff's sale for September 13, 2016. Emigrant did not notify defendants of the new sale date.
On September 13, 2016, Emigrant purchased the property at the sheriff's sale for $100. Upon learning of the sale, defendants filed a motion to vacate the sale on September 22, 2016, arguing the sale was unfair and prejudicial absent further notice by Emigrant. The judge denied defendants' motion but extended their redemption period to November 1, 2016. Defendants now appeal on the same grounds.
On appeal, defendants seek reversal of the order denying their motion to vacate the sheriff's sale, arguing that our decision in First Mutual Corp. v. Samojeden, 214 N.J. Super. 122 (App. Div. 1986) requires this result. In Samojeden, we held that our court rules, "as a matter of fundamental fairness[,] . . . must be construed as entitling interested parties to actual knowledge of the adjourned date upon which the sale actually takes place." Id. at 123.
We review the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to vacate the sheriff's sale under an abuse of discretion standard. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012). The Court finds an abuse of discretion when a decision is "made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007) (quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 (2002)).
My name is Jasmine Lawson and I just want to recommend Mr. Gomez you because he has been a lawyer of mine and my family since I was 14 years old and I definitely can suggest that he is amazing at what he does, just got me off today. I want to say that if you do need
someone to help you out and get you exactly where you need to be without all the hassles, call them.
We recognize that a court of equity may set aside a sale and provide the defendant with notice of another sheriff's sale. First Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Merola, 319 N.J. Super. 44, 49 (App. Div. 1999). "The general rule is that when insufficient notice of a sheriff's sale is given, the preferred remedy is that which restores the status quo ante to the greatest extent possible." New Brunswick Sav. Bank v. Markouski, 123 N.J. 402, 425 (1991). The court may void the sale if the party promptly seeks relief, was unaware of the pending sale, and no innocent third parties would be prejudiced. Ibid. (citation omitted).
However, the remedy to void the sale requires "some evidence of actual prejudice to an interested party." G.E. Capital Mortg. Servs., Inc. v. Marilao, 352 N.J. Super. 274, 283 (App. Div. 2002). The power to void the sale is "discretionary and must be based on considerations of equity and justice." First Trust Nat'l Ass'n, 319 N.J. Super. at 49. We defer to that exercise of discretion, absent a mistake of law or an abuse of discretion. Ibid.
Independent of statutes or court rules, the court may grant equitable relief to set aside a sheriff's sale or to order redemption when irregularities occur in the conduct of the sale, such as fraud, accident, mistake or surprise. Orange Land Co. v. Bender, 96 N.J. Super. 158, 164 (App. Div. 1967). While we held in Samojeden that fundamental fairness entitles all "interested parties to actual knowledge of the adjourned date upon which the sale actually takes place," we did not hold that the absence of such notice requires the court to vacate the sale in every case. 214 N.J. Super. at 123.
Here, the trial court carefully exercised its discretion by crafting a remedy of extending the redemption period by ten days rather than vacating the sheriff's sale. The court balanced the equities of the parties, noting the lengthy history of this matter, where defendants had not made any mortgage payments in over eight years, while Emigrant "paid the taxes . . . paid the insurance," without "access to the collateral" securing its mortgage loan. In addition, the court noted, "There's no . . . evidence to indicate . . . there was going to be a purchase at the sale or [that] some modification . . . was underway." The court further noted that defendants were effectively on notice that the sheriff's sale would be rescheduled after the bankruptcy court dismissed their petition. In essence, the court found that Emigrant's failure to provide formal notice did not prejudice defendants. Indeed, the court gave defendants ten days to redeem the property, but they failed to make the redemption. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision.
Affirmed.
Wednesday, December 9, 2020
CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333
CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE
JOAN MARIE HOFFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE and CALIBER HOME LOANS, Defendants-Respondents.
No. A-4566-17T4. Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Argued telephonically May 13, 2019.
Decided June 5, 2019.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Somerset County, Docket No. C-012005-18.
Joan Marie Hoffman, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Robert T. Yusko argued the cause for respondent Caliber Home Loans (Perkins Coie LLP, attorneys; Robert T. Yusko, on the brief).
Eva K. Carey argued the cause for respondent J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (Bertone Piccini, LLP, attorneys; Eva K. Carey, of counsel and on the brief).
Before Judges Fasciale and Rose.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Hi, my name is Nicole. I was represented by Rafael Gomez, his office treated my very fairly and I highly recommend him.
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from two orders: an April 30, 2018 order dismissing the amended complaint against defendant Caliber Home Loans (Caliber); and a June 8, 2018 order dismissing the complaint against defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), improperly pled as J.P. Morgan Chase. Judge Margaret Goodzeit entered the orders and rendered comprehensive and thorough opinions. We affirm.
Almost eleven years ago, a bank instituted a residential foreclosure complaint against plaintiff, who immediately filed an answer contesting the bank's allegations. In November 2009, the bank obtained final judgment, which the court amended. The Sheriff then scheduled the sale of the property. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 petition, which stayed the sale. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition in October 2016, and although the Sheriff re-listed the sale, plaintiff stayed it again by filing a Chapter 7 petition. The bankruptcy court lifted the stay, refusing to stay the sale any further, despite multiple applications by plaintiff.[1] Plaintiff filed this complaint in January 2018, and the Sheriff sale of the property occurred in June 2018.
In this complaint, plaintiff alleged she proposed to redeem the property in March 2010, Chase failed to respond, Caliber became the servicer of the loan in July 2015, and Caliber provided a pay-off figure to plaintiff in November 2017. The judge entered the orders under review dismissing the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), the entire controversy doctrine (ECD), res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred by dismissing the complaint by relying on the ECD. Indeed, her merits brief focuses solely on the ECD, although at oral argument before us, she contended that the judge erroneously relied on the other bases for dismissing this case. Plaintiff urges us to reverse the orders and award her damages.
We conclude that plaintiff's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant attention in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We reach that conclusion even considering plaintiff's new arguments on appeal, on the record that she expanded without court order. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Goodzeit.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from two orders: an April 30, 2018 order dismissing the amended complaint against defendant Caliber Home Loans (Caliber); and a June 8, 2018 order dismissing the complaint against defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase), improperly pled as J.P. Morgan Chase. Judge Margaret Goodzeit entered the orders and rendered comprehensive and thorough opinions. We affirm.
Almost eleven years ago, a bank instituted a residential foreclosure complaint against plaintiff, who immediately filed an answer contesting the bank's allegations. In November 2009, the bank obtained final judgment, which the court amended. The Sheriff then scheduled the sale of the property. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 petition, which stayed the sale. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petition in October 2016, and although the Sheriff re-listed the sale, plaintiff stayed it again by filing a Chapter 7 petition. The bankruptcy court lifted the stay, refusing to stay the sale any further, despite multiple applications by plaintiff.[1] Plaintiff filed this complaint in January 2018, and the Sheriff sale of the property occurred in June 2018.
In this complaint, plaintiff alleged she proposed to redeem the property in March 2010, Chase failed to respond, Caliber became the servicer of the loan in July 2015, and Caliber provided a pay-off figure to plaintiff in November 2017. The judge entered the orders under review dismissing the complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e), the entire controversy doctrine (ECD), res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the judge erred by dismissing the complaint by relying on the ECD. Indeed, her merits brief focuses solely on the ECD, although at oral argument before us, she contended that the judge erroneously relied on the other bases for dismissing this case. Plaintiff urges us to reverse the orders and award her damages.
We conclude that plaintiff's contentions are without sufficient merit to warrant attention in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We reach that conclusion even considering plaintiff's new arguments on appeal, on the record that she expanded without court order. We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Goodzeit.
Affirmed
[1] Plaintiff filed at least three other bankruptcy petitions, seeking further stays of the sale. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions and denied each of her requests to stay the sale of the property.
[1] Plaintiff filed at least three other bankruptcy petitions, seeking further stays of the sale. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions and denied each of her requests to stay the sale of the property.
Hi my name is Nelson Gonzalez, I'm here again because I wanna reccomend Rafael Gomez, as your lawyer, he is a great lawyer, he helps you and don't let you down. This is the third case I had with him so like I said, I wanna reccomend him really really big time. Thank you.
Monday, December 7, 2020
WAGE GARNISHMENT - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK NJ (201) 646-3333
Are You In Jeopardy Of Your Wages Being Garnished?
BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY
Wage garnishment occurs when money is taken directly out of your paycheck by the entity that you owe it to before you receive the check. Wage garnishments are done when you owe a creditor or the government money that you could not or would not pay of your own volition. The creditor will get a judgment against you from the court which gives it permission to remove money from your check. Wages may be garnished for debts owed to creditors, failure to pay student loans, or because of unpaid taxes. The government does not need a judgment by the court to garnish your wages.
There are limits to the amount of money that can be deducted from your paycheck. Wage garnishment must be no more that 25% of your disposable income. It is not uncommon for employers to hold back a larger percentage of your earned income than the 25% allowable by law. An experienced New Jersey bankruptcy lawyer like Rafael Gomez can assist you in recovering those wages and can also educate you on the wage garnishment process.
Hello my name is Christian, Rafael Gomez helped me with moving violation that I had well he got my charge down so somewhere where I was a lot better than before so I really recommend him
sincerely grateful to him and it made the charge a lot better than it was before. So thank you
IRS Wage Garnishment
One of the most frequent users of the wage garnishment process is the IRS. The amount they can garnish depends on the amount of money owed, marital status and how many dependents you have. When a state court orders a garnishment, state law determines the maximum amount that may be removed from your paycheck.
It is mandatory for the IRS to send you a notice stating that the back taxes you owe will be recovered by the process of wage garnishment. Such letters are usually sent out 30 days prior to the start of this tax recovery process.
When the Internal Revenue Service starts threatening you with wage garnishment and levies, and you have exhausted all other means of trying to resolve your debt problems, you should contact northern New Jersey bankruptcy lawyer Rafael Gomez for a free bankruptcy consultation.
Hi my name is Kathleen Michelle I want to highly recommend Rafael Gomez. I think he's an excellent attorney. I've known him for a while and if my case came up so very quick, he didn't waste any time, definitely, definitely recommend him, 20 stars. Thank you.
If you need help with a wage garnishment matter, contact Rafael Gomez at (201) 646-3333.
Friday, December 4, 2020
CHAPTER 7 ELIGIBILITY - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333
CHAPTER 7 ELIGIBILITY
(201) 646-3333
BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK NEW JERSEY
How you doing, my name is Julio Ospina. I really recommend Rafael Gomez, he's a great lawyer he helped me a lot and my case went amazing awesome.
One of the primary purposes of bankruptcy is to discharge certain debts to give an honest individual debtor a "fresh start." The debtor has no liability for discharged debts. In a chapter 7 case, however, a discharge is only available to individual debtors, not to partnerships or corporations. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(1). Although an individual chapter 7 case usually results in a discharge of debts, the right to a discharge is not absolute, and some types of debts are not discharged. Moreover, a bankruptcy discharge does not extinguish a lien on property.
Wednesday, December 2, 2020
WHAT IS THE PROCESS? - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333
HACKENSACK BANKRUPTCY LAWYER
Understanding the bankruptcy process is an important part in determining whether to file for bankruptcy and getting a clear picture of what you are up against over the next several months. The timeline and process associated with filing for bankruptcy in New Jersey will vary depending upon whether you file a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 case, but the basic process has been laid out below:
- The bankruptcy process will begin with determining whether you qualify. You must have completed a certified credit counseling briefing within the past 180 days. If you have previously filed or attempted to file for bankruptcy in the past, you must wait a certain amount of time before filing another petition.
- Your bankruptcy case will formally begin when you file your petition with the bankruptcy court. At this time, the court will place an automatic stay on all collection efforts, including foreclosure. A bankruptcy trustee will also be assigned to oversee your case.
- Within 15 days of filing, you must file particular information with the court, declaring assets, liabilities, income, expenses, and the like. If you filed a Chapter 13 case, you will need to provide a payment schedule as well.
- You will need to file a statement of intention regarding your debts, including which debts you would like to reaffirm in order to keep particular property and continue making payments on it.
- Within 45 days of filing for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will schedule a meeting of creditors. Your presence will be required at this meeting, and you will need to testify under oath about the accuracy of all the statements and information in your bankruptcy petition.
- The bankruptcy process will conclude with the discharge of all eligible debt. For a Chapter 7 case, this may occur within 6 months of filing. For a Chapter 13 case, this discharge will occur within 3 to 5 years of filing (after the completion of the payment plan.)
Hi my name is Richard Whalen. Rafael Gomez just represented me in court, everything went
well and I'd recommend him to anyone looking for a good lawyer.
.
You can help ensure that the bankruptcy process goes as smoothly as possible and that your debt is successfully discharged by working with an experienced New Jersey Bankruptcy attorney.
My name is Javier Flores and I was just represented by Rafael Gomez, he's a very good lawyer and I would recommend it to anybody.
Monday, November 30, 2020
BANKRUPTCY OVERVIEW - ATTORNEY IN NEW JERSEY (201) 646-3333
BANKRUPTCY OVERVIEW
BANKRUPTCY LAW FIRM IN HACKENSACK - NJ (201) 646-3333
If you are like many Bergen/Hudson and Passaic County debtors today, you may be in a situation where you are overwhelmed with debt, having difficulty making your mortgage payments or are considering some form of debt relief such as consolidation, settlement or even bankruptcy. In any of these or similar matters, it can be difficult to determine what course of action you should take to seek relief. This is when we advise discussing your financial situation, your concerns and your goals with an experienced New Jersey bankruptcy lawyer. This is a potentially sensitive and complex matter that will have lasting effects for you and your family. With the right information and advice provided to you by an honest legal professional, you have the opportunity to make a decision that will positively impact your finances - and put your concerns at ease.
Hi, my name is Mercedez. I recommend Rafael Gomez, he treats you as if you were family, his assistants too, they are very receptive, he will definitely solve your case, as he did with me, it was much faster than I expected and I highly recommend him .
Thousands of residents in northern New Jersey are facing difficult times due to our current economic conditions. Whether you have been affected by a job loss, divorce, medical expenses or overwhelming credit card debt, you may find yourself unsure of what your next step should be. Having to confront handling your finances can be a difficult thing to do, but ignoring them can lead to dire consequences. With the help of a caring and dedicated New Jersey bankruptcy attorney at the Rafael Gomez, Attorney at Law, P.C., our firm will work closely with you to determine your financial situation and recommend the best option for your circumstances. Rafael Gomez will not speak to you in complicated legalese, instead he will explain in simple terms the options for relieving your financial situation. Scheduling a free bankruptcy consultation is your first step towards peace of mind and eliminating your debt.
Many people assume that bankruptcy should never be an option, buying into the many bankruptcy myths that surround the process. It appears complex, frightening and may seem insurmountable, something you can never come back from. This is not the case, however, and the myths should not be believed. With the proper guidance and experienced legal support of a knowledgeable New Jersey bankruptcy attorney, it doesn't have to be the end of your life, but rather a way to begin the next chapter of it. By sitting down and evaluating your situation with you, Rafael Gomez will be able to help you decide whether a Chapter 7 or a Chapter 13 would be a better fit, as well as help you understand all of the aspects caused and affected by it, including foreclosure, credit card debt and life after bankruptcy. By thoroughly and completely comprehending both the process and all the ramifications, you can feel more comfortable as your begin to navigate through it with the help of your Bergen, Hudson, Passaic County bankruptcy lawyer at your side.
My name is Joanne and I've known Mr. Gomez for 10 years, he is an excellent attorney, does great efficiently work on cases and his staff is very efficient. Please give him a call if you need help. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)