US Bank National Association, as Trustee for Csab Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-3…

Summary

Responding to a motion to vacate a foreclosure default judgment entered after the Guillaumes never answered US Bank's complaint, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified the Appellate Division's judgment. It concurred that the borrowers showed neither excusable neglect nor a meritorious defense under Rule 4:50-1(a), that TILA rescission was properly denied because they could not tender the loan balance, and that no exceptional circumstances or void-judgment grounds supported vacatur. Departing from the panel, the Court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(11) requires the notice of intention to identify the actual lender's name and address alongside servicer contact information, that naming only the servicer is not substantial compliance, and that dismissal without prejudice is not the exclusive remedy for a violation—courts may order a cure or impose another case-appropriate equitable remedy—overruling the prior Appellate Division rule confining remedies to dismissal.