MIDFIRST BANK, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. ALISA LOVE, Defendant, Appellant.
DOCKET NO. A–0108–12T3
-- September 26, 2013
Alisa Love, appellant, argued the cause pro se.Stuart H. West argued the cause for respondent (Pluese, Becker & Saltzman, L.L.C., attorneys; Mr. West, on the brief).
Appellant Alisa Love appeals from an August 29, 2012 order denying a stay of eviction after a lengthy foreclosure process that began by way of a foreclosure complaint filed on January 23, 2008. Because appellant has been evicted, we dismiss her appeal as moot.
Final judgment in the foreclosure matter in the amount of $207,291.83 was entered on November 24, 2009. Appellant did not appeal this judgment. She filed four bankruptcy petitions after final judgment was entered that stayed the proceedings. A sheriff's sale was conducted on August 16, 2011. Eviction was initially scheduled for April 19, 2012. Appellant then filed five applications to stay eviction with the Chancery Division. She was successful in staying the eviction until the denial of her fifth application, filed on June 13, 2012. She sought emergent relief from us. We denied her application for a stay of eviction pending appeal in a June 14, 2012 order, stating in pertinent part:
The motion for a stay of eviction pending appeal is hereby denied. However, due to equitable concerns based on defendant's family situation, we hereby grant a stay of the eviction until the end of the day on July 1, 2012, solely to permit defendant and her family to make an orderly removal from the premises. No further stays will be granted. Defendant and her family must vacate the premises by the end of the day on July 1, 2012. If she does not do so, plaintiff may proceed with the eviction.
The Supreme Court denied her further application for stay. She filed five further unsuccessful applications for a stay with the courts. On August 29, 2012, the same date that the order under appeal was signed, the eviction was completed.
Although only appealing the order denying a further stay of the eviction that has now been completed, appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
POINT I: THE TRIAL COURTS ENTERED A DENIAL OF STAY OF EVICTION. WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE. MISHANDLING OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE MORTGAGE COMPANY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES.
POINT II: ATTORNEYS FOR THE MORTGAGE COMPANY ENGAGED INTO SEVERAL ACTS WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION TO THE APPELLANT. THEN PROVIDING MISLEADING INFORMATION TOWARDS OBTAINING A LOAN MODIFICATION.
Appellant did not appeal from the foreclosure judgment, entered almost four years ago, nor did she appeal any subsequent orders until seeking emergent relief from the June 13, 2012 denial of a stay of eviction. As the eviction has been completed, the foreclosure judgment entered and sheriff's sale finalized, her appeal is moot. We consider an issue moot when “our decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy.” Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J.Super. 214, 221–22 (App.Div.2011) (quoting Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 382 N.J.Super. 254, 257–58 (App.Div.2006)) (quoting New York S. & W.R. Corp. v. State Dep't of Treasury, Div. of Taxation, 6 N.J. Tax 575, 582 (Tax Ct.1984), aff'd, 204 N.J.Super. 630 (App.Div.1985)). See also Sudersan v. Royal, 386 N.J.Super. 246, 251 (App.Div.2005)(stating in the context of a landlord-tenant matter, “Ordinarily, where a tenant no longer resides in the property, an appeal challenging the propriety of an eviction is moot”).
Dismissed as moot.