Call us: 856-942-1222
Family Law South JerseyFamily Law South JerseyFamily Law South JerseyFamily Law South Jersey
  • About The Firm
  • Practice Areas
    • Divorce
    • Estate Planning
    • Family & Matrimonial
  • About Jeffrey
  • Contact Us
  • Family Law Blog
  • Family Law Q&A

New Jersey Appellate Court Decision: New Century Financial Services, Inc. v. Oughla

NextPrevious

New Jersey Appellate Court Decision: New Century Financial Services, Inc. v. Oughla

By admin | Blog | Comments are Closed | 17 February, 2016 | 0

The New Jersey Appellate Court published a decision in the case of New Century Financial Services Inc. v. Oughla, App. Div. (Accurso, J.A.D.), involving closed and charged-off credit card debt. The Court considered the proofs necessary for the plaintiffs to prevail on summary judgment in an action to collect an assigned debt on a closed and charged-off credit card account. In considering whether plaintiffs established prima facie proof of their claims of ownership of the defendant’s charged-off debt and the amount due the card issuer when it charged off the account, the Court held that the lack of notice to the debtor of the sale of the debt does not affect the validity of the assignment; the assignment need not specifically reference defendant’s name or account number and instead may refer to an electronic data file containing that information; a plaintiff need not procure an affidavit from each transferor in its chain of assignments and may instead establish prima facie proof of ownership on the basis of business records documenting its ownership; and that an electronic copy of the periodic billing statement for the last billing cycle is prima facie proof of the amount due on the account at charge off.

Certain “high-profile” mortgage foreclosure litigation cases were cited, and the Court reasoned, among other things:

We agree with defendants that plaintiffs must prove that they own the charged-off credit card debts on which they sue, whether one characterizes it as standing to sue or an essential element of proof on an assigned claim. See, Sullivan v. Visconti, 68 N.J.L. 543, 550 (Sup. Ct. 1902), aff’d, 69 N.J.L. 452 (E. & A. 1903); Triffin v. Somerset Valley Bank, 343 N.J. Super. 73, 79-82 (App. Div. 2001); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. Super. 592, 599-600 (App. Div. 2011).

We reviewed the requirements for affidavits purporting to establish a party’s ownership of an assigned mortgage debt in Ford, supra, 418 N.J. Super. at 597-98. Those principles apply equally here. An affiant must aver that the facts presented are on personal knowledge, identify the source of such knowledge, and must properly authenticate any certified copies of documents referred to therein and attached to the affidavit or certification. Id. at 599-600.

Contact Jeffrey

    [recaptcha]

    No tags.
    NextPrevious

    The Family Law Blog

    • SO, WHO GETS THE HOUSE? – Jeffrey Alan Kerstetter, Esquire

      “I want that house!” It’s one of the most frequent statements a

      12 January, 2017

    Contact Us

    305 White Horse Pike, Unit A
    Haddon Heights, NJ 08035
    PH: (856) 942-1222 FX: (856) 393-7540
    Copyright Kerstetter Law LLC | All Rights Reserved Web Site Powered By Xact IT - IT Support For Business
    • About The Firm
    • Practice Areas
      • Divorce
      • Estate Planning
      • Family & Matrimonial
    • About Jeffrey
    • Contact Us
    • Family Law Blog
    • Family Law Q&A
    Family Law South Jersey