A New Jersey appeals court has held in a published ruling that in the “unusual” instance that the promissory note and a valid assignment of mortgage aren’t held by the same entity, a party seeking to foreclose on a mortgage must demonstrate it has both.

But in a case where Capital One Bank brought a foreclosure action on a property when it possessed the mortgage but not the note, the appeals court said irregularities did not warrant reversal since it possessed both earlier.

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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]