THE DISCHARGE - BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY IN BERGEN COUNTY NJ (201)-646-3333

THE DISCHARGE

BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK NJ 

(201)-646-3333

A discharge in United States bankruptcy law, when referring to a debtor's discharge, is a statutory injunction against the commencement or continuation of an action (or the employment of process, or an act) to collect, recover or offset a debt as a personal liability of the debtor. The discharge is one of the primary benefits afforded by relief under the Bankruptcy Code and is essential to the "fresh start" of debtors following bankruptcy that is a central principle under federal bankruptcy law. A discharge of debts is granted to debtors but can be denied or revoked by the court based on certain misconduct of debtors, including fraudulent actions or failure of a debtor to disclose all assets during a bankruptcy case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0qI_DYaeDw&feature=youtu.be

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.

The benefit of the discharge injunction is narrower than (but similar to) the benefit afforded by the automatic stay in bankruptcy.


In the United States, there are generally seven kinds of debtor discharges in bankruptcy, found in the following statutes:

• 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) (relating to liquidation bankruptcies for individuals);

• 11 U.S.C. § 944(b) (relating to municipal bankruptcies);

• 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A) (relating to discharges resulting from confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization);

• 11 U.S.C. § 1228(a) (relating to certain family farmer or fisherman cases);

• 11 U.S.C. § 1228(b) (relating to certain family farmer or fisherman cases);

• 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a) (relating to certain cases involving adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income);

• 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b) (relating to certain cases involving adjustment of debts of an individual with regular income).

The effect of the debtor's discharge is provided for at 11 U.S.C. § 524. In addition, certain limitations on the debtor's discharge are described at 11 U.S.C. § 523.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chB7dfkyk0I&feature=youtu.be

Good afternoon, I'm a client of attorney Mr Gomez and I'm here to say his staff and him is very good. They answer all my questions, there's always there to support me. I win my case in court, he's wonderful. If anybody needs an attorney I recommend Mr Gomez. He's wonderful, thank you.

RELIEF FROM STAY IN CHAPTER 13 - ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK (201)-646-3333

Relief from stay in Chapter 13

ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK (201)-646-3333

A secured creditor of a debtor in Chapter 13 (except a creditor secured only by a lien on real property used as the debtor's principal residence) faces the prospect of a repayment plan forced upon it if the bankruptcy court confirms the debtor's plan. Confirmation usually follows the filing of a petition by fewer than six months. Thus, unless the secured creditor is concerned about uninsured property having significant value, or unless the secured creditor seriously doubts the likelihood of prompt confirmation of a plan, the expense of seeking relief from stay may not justify the benefit. Moreover, as suggested by In re Radden, it may be difficult for the secured creditor to prevail on a motion seeking relief from stay.

     As in a Chapter 7 case, a secured creditor with a consensual lien on a Chapter 13 debtor's residence will often seek relief from stay in order to foreclose if the debtor is in arrears on mortgage payments and if it appears unlikely that the debtor will be able to fund a plan that both cures arrearages and maintains ongoing mortgage payments.

A bankruptcy petition, once it is filed, immediately operates as an automatic stay, holding in abeyance various forms of creditor action against the debtor. Automatic stay provisions work to protect the debtor against certain actions from the creditor, including: (1) beginning or continuing judicial proceedings against the debtor, (2) actions to obtain debtor's property, (3) actions to create, perfect or enforce a lien against a debtor's property, and (4) set-off of indebtedness owed to the debtor before commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGZnX_g37Ck

Hey Rafael it's Ken Zambrano. I'm here sending you this message to you and your staff to thank you for everything that you've done for me. Everything was great and everybody was polite and helpful for me. Thank you again. I recommend you to everybody that I come across.

A court may give a creditor relief from the stay if the creditor can show that the stay does not give the creditor "adequate protection" or if it jeopardizes the creditor's interest in certain property. The court may give relief to the creditor in the form of periodic cash payments or an additional or replacement lien on the property.

Concerned that debtors may exploit some of the advantages of automatic stay provisions, Congress provided some relief to certain creditors, such as those creditors who have a secured interest in a single real estate asset, from the automatic stay in 1994. Congress required such debtors to either file a plan that has a reasonable chance of being accepted within a reasonable amount time or to make to each such secured creditor monthly payments in the amount equal to interest at a current fair market rate on the value of the creditor's real estate.

Also in 2005, Congress added two more exceptions to the automatic stay provisions. These exceptions concern landlords seeking to evict tenants. First, any eviction proceedings in which the landlord obtained a judgment of possession prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition may be continued. Second, eviction proceedings filed after bankruptcy proceedings are exempt from the automatic stay if they involve evicting the tenant on the basis of using illegal substances or "endangerment" of the property.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtSn0kyvo0&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Jenny. Mr Gomez was recommended to me by another attorney. I'm also a paralegal. Mr Gomez has done a case for me in which he's won. I've known him for 14 years plus. Mr Gomez and his staff is very very professional. I love them basically he is an excellent attorney. I would recommend him to anyone as a matter of fact have recommended him to a few people and they also like him. Base he should be he's my attorney and he will continue to be my attorney and he should be your attorney too.

Pursuant to the new provisions of BACPA, certain restrictions were added to section 362 as to the automatic stay. If the debtor had a case dismissed in a case pending during the year before the bankruptcy case was filed, the automatic stay will expire to a certain extent unless the debtor obtains an order extending it within one month. If the debtor had two cases pending in the year prior to filing, the automatic stay does not go into effect unless the debtor files a motion.

WHAT IS THE AUTOMATIC STAY? - HACKENSACK BANKRUPTCY LAWYER (201)-646-3333

What Is The Automatic Stay?

HACKENSACK BANKRUPTCY 

LAWYER (201)-646-3333

In bankruptcy law, an automatic stay is an automatic injunction that halts actions by creditors, with certain exceptions, to collect debts from a debtor who has declared bankruptcy. Under section 362 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362, the stay begins at the moment the bankruptcy petition is filed. Secured creditors may, however, petition the bankruptcy court for relief from the automatic stay upon a showing of cause. As noted in a Senate Report:

The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors, stopping all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy.

Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, Senate Report No. 95-989.

For example: a creditor with a claim that arose before commencement of the bankruptcy case cannot contact the debtor requesting or demanding payment, cannot request from the debtor security for existing unsecured or undersecured debt, cannot initiate a lawsuit against the debtor or pursue litigation activities in a pending lawsuit against the debtor, cannot attempt to enforce a judgment against the debtor and must act to stop enforcement activities that are already in motion (e.g. notify a sheriff to stop a wage garnishment or to refrain from a scheduled execution sale), cannot perfect a lien against property of the estate, cannot repossess collateral that is property of the estate, and cannot initiate or pursue non-judicial or judicial foreclosure against property of the estate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rBlNwKKWJQ&feature=youtu.be

I'm detective Gerard Robbins. I've worked in law enforcement for over 34 years, criminal justice, in general and I've known Rafael Gomez for numerous years, I highly recommend him. He's handled all types of cases, whatever type of case you have call Rafael Gomez you'll be very happy with the services.

This debtor protection is truly automatic. No hearing is held, no judge's signature required. It is invoked simply by the stamp of the bankruptcy clerk's time clock when a petition is presented for filing. Creditors are bound by the automatic stay even before they know of it, but sanctions attend only wilful violations (see Bankr. Code 362(h)).

     There are some exceptions to the automatic stay (see Bankr. Code 362(b)) and the stay does not preclude a creditor from taking action against any entity other than the debtor (e.g. a co-debtor, guarantor, or insurer).

     The automatic stay is temporary. It terminates automatically upon the occurrence of specified events (see Bankr. Code 362(c)). Also, upon an appropriate showing in a noticed hearing in bankruptcy court, creditors may obtain relief from the stay that either annuls, terminates, or modifies the stay, or conditions continuance of the stay upon certain events, such as interim payments by the debtor to the secured creditor (see Bankr. Code 362(d) and Bankr. Code 361). A secured creditor may seek relief from the stay in order to pursue its state law rights against the collateral or may seek relief from the stay as a way to force a debtor to make interim payments to the secured creditor as a condition to the stay remaining in effect. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCjpeGh52c&feature=youtu.be

I'm Dalton Duncan and I just finished my case with Rafael Gomez regarding a traffic accident and I'm very satisfied with the results. I got a good chunk of change and I can recommend him to anybody in the future.

Relief from stay in a consumer Chapter 7

     Creditors secured by liens on personal property do not often seek relief from the automatic stay in a consumer Chapter 7 case.  With respect to much of the collateral securing debt in a consumer Chapter 7 case - - an automobile, household furnishings, or jewelry - - other solutions are common: (1) the debtor continues payments of the secured debt, uninterrupted by the filing of the bankruptcy petition; or, (2) the debtor reaffirms the secured debt and begins making payments under the reaffirmation agreement; or, (3) the debtor redeems collateral from the lien; or, (4) the debtor surrenders the collateral to the secured creditor.  If the debtor does none of the above, the creditor may simply wait until the grant of discharge and then pursue its state law remedies against the collateral.

     A secured creditor of a Chapter 7 debtor is most likely to seek relief from stay and not await automatic termination of the stay in three situations:

     (1) When property of significant value, such as an automobile, is uninsured or is otherwise subject to unacceptable risk;

     (2) When property of significant value, such as an automobile, is depreciating rapidly and the creditor has reason to believe that the debtor will not promptly surrender the collateral, reaffirm the debt secured by the collateral, or redeem the collateral from the lien;

     (3) When the creditor holds a consensual lien on a debtor's residence and the debtor has defaulted on mortgage payments and appears unable to maintain continuing mortgage payments or promptly cure arrearages. 

ELIMINATE YOUR DEBT - BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY IN BERGEN COUNTY (201)646-3333

ELIMINATE YOUR DEBT

At the law firm of Rafael Gomez we understand what a trying and stressful time you are likely going through. It is never easy to file for bankruptcy, but with the entire process explained to you, it can become simpler for you to make an informed decision as to what option will work best for you. Not only can we help you make the initial decision of whether to file, but we can also guide you through the process of filing for bankruptcy in order to ensure your rights are well-protected. We will do everything that we can to help you avoid some of the most common bankruptcy mistakes.

Our firm has been helping the residents of Bergen, Hudson and Passaic Counties and the surrounding communities for many years. Our legal staff provides you with personal attention and focuses on bankruptcy law, so that you know the attorney helping you is well-versed in all aspects of bankruptcy. We strongly advocate regular face to face appointments until your case is resolved. Your attorney is always available to answer any questions you may have about the current status of your case. 

Bankruptcy law under Chapter 13 provides for the development of a plan that allows a debtor, who is unable to pay his creditors, to resolve his debts through the division of his assets among his creditors. This supervised division also allows the interests of all creditors to be treated with some measure of equality. Certain bankruptcy proceedings allow a debtor to stay in business and use revenue generated to resolve his or her debts. An additional purpose of bankruptcy law is to allow certain debtors to free themselves (to be discharged) of the financial obligations they have accumulated, after their assets are distributed, even if their debts have not been paid in full.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCjpeGh52c&feature=youtu.be

I'm Dalton Duncan and I just finished my case with Rafael Gomez regarding a traffic accident and I'm very satisfied with the results. I got a good chunk of change and I can recommend him to anybody in the future.

Bankruptcy law is federal statutory law contained in Title 11 of the United States Code. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Code under its Constitutional grant of authority to "establish... uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout the United States." States may not regulate bankruptcy though they may pass laws that govern other aspects of the debtor-creditor relationship. A number of sections of Title 11 incorporate the debtor-creditor law of the individual states.

Bankruptcy proceedings are supervised by and litigated in the United States Bankruptcy Courts. These courts are a part of the District Courts of The United States. The United States Trustees were established by Congress to handle many of the supervisory and administrative duties of bankruptcy proceedings. Proceedings in bankruptcy courts are governed by the Bankruptcy Rules which were promulgated by the Supreme Court under the authority of Congress.

There are two basic types of Bankruptcy proceedings. A filing under Chapter 7 is called liquidation. It is the most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. Liquidation involves the appointment of a trustee who collects the non-exempt property of the debtor, sells it and distributes the proceeds to the creditors. Bankruptcy proceedings under Chapters 11, 12, and 13 involve the rehabilitation of the debtor to allow him or her to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Under Chapter 7, 12, 13, and some 11 proceedings, a trustee is appointed to supervise the assets of the debtor. A bankruptcy proceeding can either be entered into voluntarily by a debtor or initiated by creditors. After a bankruptcy proceeding is filed, creditors, for the most part, may not seek to collect their debts outside of the proceeding. The debtor is not allowed to transfer property that has been declared part of the estate subject to proceedings. Furthermore, certain pre-proceeding transfers of property, secured interests, and liens may be delayed or invalidated. Various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code also establish the priority of creditors' interests.

However, a recent decision by the Supreme Court has shifted this power towards the debtor. In Rousey v. Jacoway, (April 4th, 2005), the Court held that assets in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's) are protected under 11 U.S.C § 522(d) and thus exempt from withdrawal from the bankruptcy estate. This decision has broad implications for the baby-boomer generation, providing millions of Americans nearing retirement with increased protection of their earnings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N3KSgPDwEc&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Regis. I worked with my attorney Rafael Gomez, he worked on my case today in court and it went great and I definitely recommend them. Give them five stars.

Recent passage of the Bankruptcy Prevention and Consumer Protection Act in April 2005 has also resulted in major reforms in bankrupcy law, outlining revised guidelines governing the dismissal or conversion of Chapter 7 liquidations to Chapter 11 or 13 proceedings. The law also expands the responsibilities of the United States Trustees Program to include supervision of random and targeted audits, certification of entities to provide credit counseling that individuals must receive before filing for bankruptcy, certification of entities that provide financial education to individuals before being discharged from debt, and greater oversight of small business Chapter 11 reorganization cases.

BANKRUPTCY OVERVIEW - ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK 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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEDRoxoST-A&feature=youtu.be

Hey Rafael, this is Danny Wyden I just wanted to thank you for all your help with all of my legal problems, everything worked out perfectly and I really just want to send out. Thank you to you.

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.

Dealing with Bankruptcy in 

New Jersey

When dealing with bankruptcy, there will be many decisions to make. A thorough and complete review of your finances will be conducted, along with a confidential and detailed interview with you to assist in determining the strategy that will be used to once again obtain your financial freedom. With the right approach, you can experience the many benefits that bankruptcy or other forms of debt relief can offer you while mitigating any potentially negative results.

Our firm can provide you with information and legal expertise in virtually any area related to bankruptcy.

Any one of these important topics may have a significant impact on your decision to file for bankruptcy or to seek an alternative route for debt relief. We understand that, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 may not be the right option for every client, and that is why our legal services are based upon a foundation of personalized attention and dedicated client service. When you work Rafael Gomez, you can rest assured that we will offer you information that is pertinent to your unique case as we guide you in making the right decision for YOU, your family and your future. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THus5BqWRME&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Doris. I just came out of court and I extremely recommend Rafael Gomez, everything went super so I extremely recommend them, okay.

Short Sale/Deed In Lieu - BANKRUPTCY LAW OFFICE IN HACKENSACK NJ

Short Sale/Deed In Lieu

BANKRUPTCY LAWYER HACKENSACK NJ 

201-646-3333

Many individuals in the northern New Jersey area are facing serious problems regarding the ownership of a home purchased during the sub-prime mortgage boom.  No one really understood how terrible the result of this type of mortgage could be.  Sadly, many families in the Bergen, Hudson and Passaic County area have already lost their homes as they did not take immediate action and contact a New Jerey Bankruptcy lawyer to assist them in resolving the issue.  Many debtors believe that participating in a short sale or signing over a deed in lieu of foreclosure will forever wipe out any mortgage debt. However, we have seen in many cases that lenders are coming after these debtors for the "deficiency" and many times are suing debtors to collect the deficiency.

A short sale is essentially the opportunity to sell your home for an amount that is less than the mortgaged amount. This can be a viable option for some individuals, but in other cases, it is too far past the point where a short sale can be achieved before foreclosure.  In these cases, it may be necessary to file a bankruptcy filing to halt the proceedings on the foreclosure in order to have time to resolve the issue and not end up out on the street.  Each case is unique, and it is critical that you get knowledgeable legal advice and are steered in the right direction, depending on your circumstances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R0xVvxI4Xo&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Bernard Malin and I'm an attorney and have been an attorney in Bergen County for over 40 years. I know Rafael almost from the first time that he came to practice and I know him as a very fine young attorney. He's very successful and gets good results for his clients and I can recommend him to anyone without hesitation.

What is a deed in lieu?

A deed in lieu is another option that is available to some individuals.  This is when the property is signed over to the bank and the individual no longer has to deal with the main mortgage securing the property. However, many debtors have mortgaged their property with two mortgages. It is typical for many northern New Jersey homeowners to have financed their homes with and 80/20 type of mortgage situation. This is where one mortgage secures 80% of the home and another mortgage secures the other 20% percent of the home.  These debtors usually purchased the home with no down payment and 100% financing.  Signing over a deed in lieu of foreclosure may in some cases resolve the problems with the larger mortgage; however, the smaller mortgage is still owed to the lender (usually a different lender).    These matters are emotional and extremely upsetting, and the northern New Jersey bankruptcy law firm of Rafael Gomez understands that you need help, and you need it now.  Your questions will be answered confidentially and you will understand your actual options, and can avoid scam artists that are preying on those who are suffering financial stress.

Contact Bergen, Hudson, Passaic County bankruptcy attorney Rafael Gomez by calling 201-646-3333

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ONiZuc4Oq0&feature=youtu.be

If you need to win your case and need the money Mr Gomez will win the case for you or do the best he can to do it and my name is John Goren and he did it for me.

RESTORING CREDIT AFTER BANKRUPTCY IN NEW JERSEY - BANKRUPTCY LAWYER IN HACKENSACK

RESTORING CREDIT AFTER BANKRUPTCY IN NEW JERSEY  

ATTORNEY IN HACKENSACK

201 646 3333

It is a common myth that bankruptcy will "ruin" your credit.  The truth is that after your bankruptcy is compete, you will have no unpaid debt on your credit report and you will now be able to rebuild your credit through careful financial management and paying your bills in a timely manner.  While you may face increased interest rates on any new credit cards or car loans, if you pay them off regularly and show your creditors you are being responsible financially, your credit score can improve dramatically within just a few years.  Every person's financial history is unique and you should speak to an experienced northern New Jersey bankruptcylawyer from Bergen, Hudson and Passaic County like Rafael Gomez to get more information on what to expect after you are finished with your bankruptcy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEvsWxKnsN4&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Wilson Valdiviezo. I'm back at the lawyer's office Rafael. He took care of me many years ago, many cases. He won a lot of my cases and I'm back for a new case. I recommend him 100%. He's real good and make sure you come and see him.

We have successfully helped hundreds and hundreds of our clients eliminate their debt and start building a new financial future for themselves and their families through bankruptcy.  Rafael Gomez is dedicated to helping individuals and business owners protect their valuable assets and get relief from the harassment of collection agencies while using bankruptcy to either discharge all their unsecured debt through chapter 7 or reorganize and pay off their debt over time with chapter 13.  When you come to speak with Rafael Gomez for your free bankruptcyconsultation, we will review your finances and advise you on what your best options are.

Credit Restoration Attorney in New Jersey

Another step in restoring your good credit after bankruptcy involves reviewing your various credit reports to make sure that any remaining derogatory comments are removed.  While there are companies that advertise to do this for you, it is something you can do yourself.  There are other methods of improving your credit rating including secured credit cards and getting a co-signed loan with another person who has good credit.  Making the payments and paying off such loans reflects well on both party's credit reports.  To discuss what you can expect after your bankruptcy, speak to an experienced bankruptcy lawyer like Rafael Gomez.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldu4SeuhghI&feature=youtu.be

My name is Radj Diovado, Rafal Gomez represented me in my case and I’m very satisfied. I recommend him.

BANKRUPTCY LAWSUIT NEW JERSEY - 201-646-3333

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF HSI ASSET SECURITIZATION CORP. TRUST 2007-NCI, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2001-NC1, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
WITTMORE WILLIAMS AND CHERYL WILLIAMS, Defendants-Appellants.

No. A-3491-16T3.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Submitted February 28, 2018.

Decided April 2, 2018.

On Appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Passaic County, Docket No. F-040245-08.

Franklin S. Montero, attorney for appellants.

Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PC, attorneys for respondent (Sonya Gidumal Chazin, on the brief).

Before Judges Currier and Geiger.

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.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants Cheryl and Wittmore Williams appeal from a March 9, 2017 order denying their motion to vacate a March 8, 2016 sheriff's sale in this mortgage foreclosure action. We affirm.

Defendants purchased their home on March 7, 1997. On September 27, 2006, defendants executed an adjustable rate promissory note to MortgageTree Lending for $340,000, with initial monthly payments of $2,740.99 for principal and interest, and a maturity date of October 1, 2036. Initially, interest was calculated at 9.45% but was subject to readjustment every six months, up to a maximum of 16.45%. On September 27, 2006, defendants also executed a mortgage on their residence to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for MortgageTree Lending to secure the loan. The mortgage was recorded on October 25, 2006.

Defendants both became unemployed in 2008. They defaulted on the loan payments that fell due on May 1, 2008, and each month thereafter. A notice of intention to foreclose (NOI) was mailed to defendants, notifying them of the default and how to cure it. Defendants failed to cure the default.

On August 28, 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for HSI Asset Securitization Corp. Trust 2007-NC1 (the Bank). The assignment was recorded on September 16, 2008.

Plaintiff filed a foreclosure complaint on October 14, 2008, and an amended complaint on October 28, 2008. A private process server served defendants with the summons and complaint on November 10, 2008. On January 8, 2009, default was entered against defendants for failure to respond to the complaint. On September 19, 2013, the matter was dismissed for lack of prosecution.

Defendants claim they applied and were approved for a loan modification in 2013. They certify they began making mortgage trial payments in May 2013, believing they would receive a permanent modification from Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS), the loan servicer at the time. Defendants allege after making a $1597.35 payment (an amount less than one monthly installment), plaintiff never refunded the payment and failed to follow through on the loan modification.

Plaintiff's complaint was reinstated on January 28, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for entry of judgment on May 22, 2015. On June 24, 2015, final judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $624,836.38. Defendants never filed a motion to vacate the default judgment.

A sheriff's sale was scheduled to take place on October 6, 2015. The sale was advertised in the Herald News on September 11, 18, 25, and October 2, 2015. The advertisement included the date, location, and time of the sale with a brief description of the property and directions on where the full legal description could be found. The advertisement noted the sheriff reserved the right to adjourn the sale without further notice by publication.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOieZXZuGc&feature=youtu.be

My name is Dalton and I would fully recommend Rafael Ggomez as an attorney, he won me my accident case with a very generous settlement and I can't recommend anyone better. I really enjoyed my time working with him, very professional.

Plaintiff voluntarily adjourned the sheriff's sale to November 17, 2015, and then again to January 5, 2016, for purposes of loss mitigation. The sale was then rescheduled to February 2, 2016.^[1] On February 2, 2016, plaintiff again voluntarily adjourned the sale to March 8, 2016, for loss mitigation. Defendants were sent adjournment letters for each of the adjourned sales, with the possible exception of the original adjournment to November 17, 2015.^[2]

On February 2, 2016, defendants filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Shortly thereafter, on February 23, 2016, the bankruptcy was dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court. On the same day, defendants were sent a letter from an authorized agent of SLS regarding loss mitigation assistance, seemingly triggered by the bankruptcy petition. This letter is the only reference in the record regarding a purported loan modification. The letter stated: "The Client offers several alternatives that may provide you financial relief. Such options are listed below: Loan Modification[;] Short Sale[;] Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure."

The sheriff's sale took place on March 8, 2016, and plaintiff was the successful bidder. Defendants' redemption period expired on March 18, 2016. A sheriff's deed, dated March 21, 2016, was delivered to plaintiff's counsel on March 29, 2016; the deed was subsequently recorded on November 16, 2016.

Also on March 8, 2016, Cheryl Williams signed a response form to the SLS letter, expressing interest in the loss mitigation alternatives and checking a box that read, "I hereby authorize [SLS], upon successful approval of a loan modification, to file for court approval of the loan modification." The form is also signed by the "[d]ebtor's [a]ttorney." There is no proof this form was actually mailed back; if it was, it would have been received after the sheriff's sale.

On April 19, 2016, defendants re-filed their bankruptcy petition, allegedly unaware their home had already been sold and conveyed by the sheriff to plaintiff. On August 24, 2016, plaintiff obtained an order granting its motion for relief from the automatic stay as to the mortgaged premises from the Bankruptcy Court.

Meanwhile, defendants entered into two lease agreements with tenants on April 1 and July 1, 2016 to "help [them] qualify [their] income in case any type of mortgage loan modification was available." On November 21, 2016, plaintiff's counsel sent a notice to the tenants regarding defendants' loss of the property due to foreclosure and advising the tenants to pay future rent to plaintiff. On December 29, 2016, plaintiff obtained a Writ of Possession for eviction purposes.

On January 16, 2017, more than ten months after the sale, defendants filed a motion to vacate the sheriff's sale. As of the time the motion was heard, the mortgage balance had increased to more than $650,000.

During oral argument, defendant's counsel conceded the property is "probably severely under water" because the mortgage balance far exceeds the value of the property. He further conceded the "property is in bad shape" and has "serious" heating issues.

Defendants expressed no ability or intent to cure the arrearages or redeem the mortgage. Instead, they only sought to modify the mortgage. Notably, defendants filed a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy rather than a Chapter 13 wage earner plan bankruptcy commonly used by debtors to cure mortgage arrearages.

The motion was denied by the chancery court in an oral decision on June 5, 2017. In his oral decision, the motion judge noted plaintiff had not received a single mortgage payment in the more than eight years since defendants defaulted on May 1, 2008. He noted defendants had provided no evidence that redemption was a realistic possibility. The judge found the balance of equities favored plaintiff, which was facing "an enormous loss." He determined that vacating the sale would further prejudice plaintiff because the inevitable delay would result in additional expenses and costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g-RcApZbg0&feature=youtu.be

Hi my name is Michael Blitzoffer I just want to let you know that my attorney Rafael Gomez, everything he did tell me came through, it worked out well, he told me what should happen in the upcoming, he made things easier, very reliable and I didn't have any problems going through when it came to going to court, the accident affected me but he made things much easier and he was very helpful. I highly recommend him.

The judge found defendants' reliance upon Rule 4:50-1 in their motion papers to be misplaced since defendant's motion sought to vacate the sheriff's sale, not reopen the final judgment. The judge further noted defendants were time-barred from relief under Rule 4:50-1 because their motion was filed seventeen months after the final judgment was entered on June 24, 2015. This appeal followed. 

On appeal, defendants raise the following arguments: (1) the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion to vacate the sheriff's sale based on lack of notice and irregularities in the sale; (2) defendants lacked actual notice of the sheriff's sale in violation of their right to procedural due process; (3) the foreclosure sale was not properly advertised and was adjourned excessively without proper notice; (4) defendants should not be foreclosed from pursuing all available redemption methods based on their current inability to pay; and (5) defendants furnished sufficient trial payments for a binding loan modification which plaintiff refuses to honor.

"[A]n application to open, vacate or otherwise set aside a foreclosure judgment or proceedings subsequent thereto is subject to an abuse of discretion standard." United States v. Scurry, 193 N.J. 492, 502 (2008) (citing Wiktorowicz v. Stesko, 134 N.J. Eq. 383, 386 (E. & A. 1944)). We find an abuse of discretion when a decision is "made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis." U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Guillaume, 209 N.J. 449, 467 (2012) (quoting Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 123 (2007)). It is against that standard that we evaluate the procedural and substantive issues raised by defendants.

Rule 4:65-2 mandates that "notice of the [sheriff's] sale shall be posted in the office of the sheriff of the county . . . where the property is located, and also, in the case of real property, on the premises to be sold[.]" Additionally, "at least [ten] days prior to the date set for sale, [the party obtaining the order or writ shall] serve a notice of sale by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested," on "every party who has appeared" and the "owner of record." R. 4:65-2.

The sheriff "may continue such sale by public adjournment, subject to such limitations and restrictions as are provided specially therefor." R. 4:65-4. The rule does not require notice of adjourned sale dates be served in any particular manner. See First Mut. Corp. v. Samojeden, 214 N.J. Super. 122, 127-28 (App. Div. 1986). Service of the adjournment notices by regular mail is permissible.

Adjournment requests by the plaintiff, "whether or not agreed to by the debtor, are required to be granted by the Sheriff irrespective of any prior adjournments." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. on R. 4:65-4 (2018) (citing Wells Fargo Home Mortg. v. Stull, 378 N.J. Super. 449, 454-55 (App. Div. 2005)). Here, plaintiff adjourned the sale several times for loss mitigation, an appropriate reason to adjourn a sale. Defendants were not prejudiced by the adjournments. On the contrary, they benefitted from the postponements of the sale. Thus, defendants' contention that there were excessive sale adjournments has no merit.

Rule 4:65-5 requires motions for the hearing of an objection to a sheriff's sale to be "served within [ten] days after the sale or at any time thereafter before the delivery of the conveyance." See Mercury Capital Corp. v. Freehold Office Park, Ltd., 363 N.J. Super. 235, 238 (Ch. Div. 2003) (noting that the right to object to the sale "is not finally terminated until the sheriff delivers a deed to the successful bidder"). Here, the property was sold on March 8, 2016, and the deed was delivered to plaintiff's counsel on March 29, 2016. Defendants filed their motion to vacate the sale on January 16, 2017, more than nine months after delivery of the sheriff's deed. The motion judge correctly found defendants failed to move to vacate the sale in a timely fashion.

We are mindful, however, that "as a matter of fundamental fairness, [Rule 4:65-2] must be construed as entitling interested parties to actual knowledge of the adjourned date upon which the sale actually takes place." Samojeden, 214 N.J. Super. at 123. Failure to comply with the rule requiring notice of the sheriff's sale normally requires voiding of the sale. See Assoulin v. Sugerman, 159 N.J. Super. 393, 397 (App. Div. 1978) (quoting Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. on R. 4:65-2 (1978)) (holding that noncompliance with the notice requirements imposed by Rule 4:65-2 "warrants setting the sale aside, `provided the party entitled thereto has no knowledge of the pendency of the sale, seeks relief promptly upon learning thereof, and no intervening equities in favor of innocent third parties have been created in the interim'"); Orange Land Co. v. Bender, 96 N.J. Super. 158, 164 (App. Div. 1967) (explaining that where mortgagor did not receive mandatory notice of sheriff's sale and had no knowledge of sale for five months, chancery court "could properly have set aside the sale or ordered redemption").

The motion judge found the notices sent by plaintiff's counsel to defendants advising of the March 8, 2016 adjourned sale date were mailed to the same address as the prior notices defendants admitted receiving. He further found the notices were not returned by the Post Office as undeliverable. As a result, the judge held there was presumptive good service. "New Jersey cases have recognized a presumption that mail properly addressed, stamped, and posted was received by the party to whom it was addressed." Ssi Med. Servs. v. HHS, Div. of Med. Assistance and Health Servs., 146 N.J. 614, 621 (1996) (citations omitted). The record supports the judge's conclusion that plaintiff complied with its duty to inform defendants of the March 8, 2016 adjourned sale date and that defendants had actual notice of the sale date. Accordingly, the denial of defendants' untimely motion was not an abuse of discretion.

Furthermore, the power to void a sheriff's sale "is discretionary and must be based on considerations of equity and justice." First Trust Nat'l Ass'n v. Merola, 319 N.J. Super. 44, 49 (App. Div. 1999) (citing Crane v. Bielski, 15 N.J. 342, 349 (1954)). To that end, the Court in Scurry applied the "time-honored maxims that the law does not compel one to do a useless act[,] and that equity follows the law." 193 N.J. at 505-06 (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Here, unlike the unique circumstances in Scurry, remanding this matter for a new sale or to permit a reasonable redemption period would be an exercise in futility. The market value of the property is far less than the redemption amount. Thus, defendants have no equity in the property. In any event, defendants concede they do not have the financial ability to cure the arrearages, let alone redeem the mortgage, within a reasonable period time. Therefore, a remand would serve no useful purpose.

Defendants remaining arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WZr5s4QfEM&feature=youtu.be

Hello my name is Franz Cezar and I was represented by Mr Gomez with my divorce case and I have to tell you people, he did a wonderful job. I'm telling you that from the bottom of my heart, he's a wonderful man, he's very good and I recommended him to you people and to my haitian people too. He is working for you, you should have him to work for you too, he did the wonderful guys please Mr Gomez is a very good man.

Affirmed.

[1] Plaintiff asserts the adjournment resulted from defendants exercising their statutory adjournment rights. This is inconsistent with defendants' claim that they were unaware of any sheriff's sale. The notice of adjournment does not indicate the reason for adjournment.

[2] Defendants may have been mailed a notice for this first adjournment as well, but a copy is not provided in either party's appendix.