Archive

Archive for the ‘Conflict & Dispute Resolution’ Category

False Child Molestation Claims Held To Amount To Child Abuse

November 28, 2012 Leave a comment

False Child Molestation Claims Held To Amount To Child Abuse

Charles Toutant

New Jersey Law Journal

11-27-2012

A mother subjected her daughter to abuse and neglect by making baseless reports that the child was molested by her father, the Appellate Division ruled Tuesday.

By lodging the claims, and coaching the girl to corroborate them, the mother showed a reckless disregard for her child, the court said in DYFS v. C.O., A-2387-11.

The girl’s well-being was further jeopardized by the stress of physical and psychological examinations during the sex-abuse investigations, the court added.

The girl, referred to by the pseudonym Amy, was born in November 2006 after a brief romance between her parents, referred to as Sally and Charles.

Sally resisted letting Charles spend time with Amy, but he won visitation rights shortly before her first birthday.

In April 2010, when Amy was 3, Sally took her to an emergency room and said Charles had penetrated the girl’s vagina with a vibrating device while she was visiting him.

An investigation was conducted in New York, where Charles lived. The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) remained involved because Amy is a state resident.

New York police found no evidence of sexual abuse, based on a physical examination, conflicting accounts by Amy and Sally, and interviews of guests at a party attended by Charles and Amy at the time of the alleged abuse.

DYFS and Child Protective Services (CPS) in New York also found no sexual abuse. They cited the same sources, as well as a videotape of the party showing Amy playing happily and photographs of Amy’s genital and anal areas, taken by Sally’s father before and after the visit, which did not display any injury.

DYFS and CPS also cited counselors’ concerns that Amy’s statements had been prompted by Sally.

While that investigation was under way, Sally made additional allegations of sexual abuse against Charles and insisted that Amy have a second, invasive physical exam. Again, no signs of sexual abuse were found.

DYFS contended that Sally’s continuing conduct was harmful to Amy, in violation of N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73, which defines child abuse and neglect.

A judge granted DYFS’s motion to transfer residential custody of Amy to Charles on May 13, 2010, pending a fact-finding hearing. The hearing was conducted on 12 nonconsecutive days between November 2010 and July 2011.

In December 2011, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Mizdol ruled that DYFS had sustained its burden of proof that Sally exhibited a pattern of reckless disregard that harmed Amy.

Mizdol cited the “repeated, unnecessary medical, physical and psychological examinations” and Sally’s attempts “to shape and manipulate” Amy’s behavior to further Sally’s goal to isolate Charles “from any meaningful parental relationship with his daughter.”

Sally appealed, contending that Mizdol’s factual findings were not supported and that Sally’s constitutional rights were violated by the nonconsecutive hearing dates.

Appellate Division Judges Clarkson Fisher, Carmen Alvarez and Alexander Waugh Jr. affirmed, adding that Sally had not intended to hurt Amy.

The panel cited the stress of multiple investigations, Sally’s insistence on a second physical examination and counselors’ notes that Amy had an enhanced knowledge of sexual matters for a child of her age.

In addition, the panel said Mizdol properly characterized the mother’s conduct as “abuse or neglect.”

Noting that the child-abuse statute requires such conduct to rise above the level of mere negligence, and requires conduct that is “grossly or wantonly negligent” or “reckless,” the appeals court cited Mizdol’s finding that the mother’s conduct was “reckless.”

Sally also claimed that her pursuit of a clear answer as to whether her child was sexually abused did not constitute grossly or wantonly negligent behavior.

The appeals judges noted, however, that Sally had received a clear answer from Child Protective Services and the police but would not accept it.

“The reckless disregard found by the judge stemmed not from Sally’s efforts to rule out sexual abuse, but rather from her refusal to recognize a clear answer once she had one and her continued, baseless assertions that Charles had abused Amy,” the panel added.

Sally also disputed Mizdol’s conclusion that she had coached Amy, citing a counselor who supported her view.

But the appeals court said Mizdol’s finding was appropriately supported by two other counselors and an interview of Amy by a New York child-abuse investigator and a sheriff’s officer.

The panel also rejected Sally’s claim that her rights were violated by nonconsecutive hearing dates. Although R. 5:3-6 requires a trial to run over consecutive days, the delays were caused by scheduling issues, including Sally’s work schedule and the judge’s trial calendar, the panel said.

Sally’s lawyer, James Doyle of Swenson & Doyle in Hackensack, says the ruling unfairly labels his client a child abuser because she sought further reassurance that Amy had not been abused.

DYFS did a poor job of communicating to Sally the outcome of that inquiry, says Doyle. He adds that Sally no longer suspects Charles of child abuse and still hopes to regain primary custody but the abuse and neglect finding makes that difficult.

DYFS was represented by Assistant Attorney General Andrea Silkowitz. Lee Moore, a spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, says his agency will not comment.

 

NEW CASE: N.G. v. J.P. FAMILY LAW — Domestic Violence – 50 YEARS DIVORCED IS NOT TOO LONG TO BE CONSIDERED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

June 28, 2012 Leave a comment

N.G. v. J.P.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleFriendlyNJ.jsp?id=1202560223664

FAMILY LAWDomestic Violence
Although the parties have not resided together in more than 50 years, defendant‘s sporadic harassment of plaintiff over that period, arising from their status as former household members, conferred jurisdiction on the Family Part to issue a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.

 

By Judith Nallin

06-20-2012

N.G. v. J.P., A-3247-10T3; Appellate Division; opinion by Baxter, J.A.D.; decided and approved for publication June 18, 2012. Before Judges Baxter, Nugent and Carchman. On appeal from the Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, FV-07-321-11. DDS No. 20-2-6661 [34 pp.]

Defendant J.P. appeals from the issuance of a final restraining order against him under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.

Defendant and plaintiff N.G. are siblings who have not resided together since 1960. J.P. harbors a deep resentment of N.G. and their mother, B.P. The record describes confrontations between J.P. and N.G. in the 1960s when he allegedly hit her over the head with a baseball bat, in 1989, when he confronted her in a school parking lot, and in 1991, when he encountered her at a local pizzeria.

As a result of those incidents, N.G. obtained an order for preliminary restraints barring J.P. from contacting or disparaging her and from conducting any sort of public protest adjacent to her residence. In 1991, a judge entered a FRO prohibiting J.P. from coming within four blocks of the residences of B.P. and N.G.. The FRO was vacated in 1993 as to B.P. only.

In February 2010, J.P. began picketing in front of N.G.’s residence. On 29 occasions he marched back and forth repeatedly saying “F— you G——–,” “Burn in hell,” and “I hope you rot in hell.” He often made an obscene gesture in which he raised each of his middle fingers.

As a result, N.G. filed a domestic-violence complaint against him. The judge ruled that J.P. had committed the predicate acts of stalking and harassment and issued the FRO barring him from contacting N.G. and from entering any portion of Millburn Township. J.P. responded that he would not comply with the court’s order. N.G. was awarded attorney fees.

Held: The harassment of plaintiff by defendant over the intervening decades — although sporadic — conferred jurisdiction on the Family Part to issue the FRO since the present incidents arose directly from the parties’ acrimonious family relationship and their status as former household members.

Defendant’s conduct constituted harassment and stalking. The award of attorney fees to plaintiff is affirmed, as such fees are expressly available under the act and the judge correctly applied the factors in Rule 4:42-9(b). However, because the FRO failed to give sufficient consideration to J.P.’s legitimate need to attend church and visit his physician in Millburn, the matter is remanded so that the judge may set precise conditions respecting those activities.

J.P. claims that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue the FRO and that the judge committed reversible error when he refused to dismiss N.G.’s complaint. The panel says the act defines a victim of domestic violence to include, “any person … who has been subjected to domestic violence by … any … person who is a present or former household member.” The panel applies the six-factor test for determining whether jurisdiction exists based on the parties’ status set forth in Coleman v. Romano, 388 N.J. Super. 342 (Ch. Div. 2006).

As to the first factor, the nature and duration of the prior relationship between the parties, the panel agrees with the trial judge’s finding that although N.G. and J.P. have been estranged for decades, his attempt to re-establish contact with her springs from the antagonism he harbored toward her while they were members of the same household. The long duration of the parties’ relationship, albeit composed of sporadic episodes of intense strife, supports the conclusion that this factor was satisfied.

As to the second factor, whether the past domestic relationship provides a special opportunity for abuse and controlling behavior, the panel says J.P.’s testimony concerning the motivation for his behavior makes it clear that if N.G. were not his sister, he would not have behaved toward her as he did. Her testimony supports the conclusion that events during her childhood made her fearful of his conduct and threats in adulthood. Thus, the second factor weighs in favor of jurisdiction under the act.

The panel says that while the parties have not lived together for more than 50 years, the third factor, the amount of time that has elapsed since the parties last lived together, is only one factor to be considered in determining the availability of the act’s protection.

The fourth factor is the nature and extent of any contact between the parties between the time they ceased living together and when the plaintiff seeks protection under the act. The panel says that although J.P.’s conduct in 1989 and 1991 is distant in time both from when the parties stopped living together and from when N.G. sought protection under the act, the incidents were of such severity as to weigh in favor of jurisdiction.

As to the fifth factor, the nature of the precipitating incident, the panel says that case law has held that when the precipitating incident relates to the prior domestic relationship, jurisdiction under the act is appropriate. Because J.P.’s behavior in 2010 was motivated exclusively by what he perceived as B.P.’s and N.G.’s unjust treatment of him, and his conduct was persistent and threatening, the nature of the precipitating incident weighs in favor of jurisdiction.

Finally, the panel says the sixth factor, the likelihood of ongoing contact or a continuing relationship, weighs in favor of jurisdiction since defendant’s testimony provides ample evidence that his behavior will not cease.

Because all of the Coleman factors, with the possible exception of the third, weigh in favor of jurisdiction, the panel affirms the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss.

As to defendant’s argument that the FRO was oppressively and impermissibly broad, the panel notes that remedies under the act are liberally construed for the protection and safety of victims and the public at large. Noting J.P.’s defiant attitude and his vow to disobey the FRO, it says extraordinary measures are necessary for N.G.’s protection.

Therefore, the panel affirms the ban on defendant entering Millburn. However, it remands to give J.P. a fuller opportunity to describe his church attendance and any visits to his doctors in Millburn. If he fails to do so, his right to seek such relief will be deemed waived.

As to defendant’s claim that the judge erred by finding his conduct constituted harassment and stalking, the panel reviews the statutory definition of stalking and concludes that the trial court correctly found that J.P. committed the predicate offense of stalking where he maintained a visual and physical proximity to N.G., his conduct was repeated 29 times, he threatened N.G. by offensive hand gestures and shouting curses at her, and he caused emotional distress.

Similarly, the panel reviews the definition of harassment and concludes that J.P.’s conduct constituted harassment where he communicated with N.G., his conduct undermined his claim that his intent was other than to harass her, and his repeated conduct was likely to cause annoyance or alarm.

The panel affirms the award of counsel fees, finding that such an award in a domestic-violence proceeding requires no special showing and that the judge carefully applied all of the factors specified in Rule 4:42-9(b), RPC 1.5(a) and Schmidt v. Schmidt, 262 N.J. Super. 451 (Ch. Div. 1992).

For appellant — Jack Venturi (Jack Venturi & Associates; Venturi and Michael B. Roberts on the briefs). For respondents — Mark H. Sobel (Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis; Sobel and Dennis F. Feeney on the brief).

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleFriendlyNJ.jsp?id=1202560223664

Benjamin G. Kelsen, Esq. named a “Super Lawyer”

March 23, 2012 Leave a comment

Benjamin G. Kelsen, Esq., of  The Law Offices of Benjamin G. Kelsen, Esq. LLC, a Teaneck New Jersey based firm with offices in Lakewood and Newark, has been named to the New Jersey Rising Stars list as one of the top up-and-coming attorneys in New Jersey for 2012.  Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state receive this honor. The selection  for this respected list is made by the research team at SuperLawyers. SuperLawyers, a Thomson-Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a rigorous multi-phased process that includes a state wide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates, and peer reviews by practice area. The Rising Stars lists are published nation wide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines across the country.

For more information about SuperLawyers, go to superlawyers.com. The first SuperLawyers list was published in 1991 and by 2009 the rating service had expanded nationwide. In February 2010 SuperLawyers was acquired by ThomsonReuters the world’s leading source of intelligent information for business and professionals

Statement by NSC Spokesman Tommy Vietor on Attack in France on Behalf of the President

March 19, 2012 Leave a comment

Image

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 19, 2012

Image

Statement by National Security Council ( NSC ) Spokesman Tommy Vietor on Attack in France on

on behalf of President Barak Obama and The White House

We were deeply saddened to learn of the horrific attack this morning against the teachers and students of a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse.  Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims, and we stand with a community in grief.  We join the Government of France in condemning this unprovoked and outrageous act of violence in the strongest possible terms.

Legal issues slow foreclosures

November 6, 2011 1 comment

Legal issues slow foreclosures

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2011    LAST UPDATED: SUNDAY NOVEMBER 6, 2011, 10:22 AM
BY KATHLEEN LYNN
STAFF WRITER
THE RECORD

In a small Bergen County courtroom one recent Friday, a sheriff’s officer auctioned off two foreclosed properties in a matter of minutes, as a handful of investors kept their eyes open for bargains.

Few buyers attended a foreclosure auction of two properties at the Bergen County Courthouse.

DAVID BERGELAND/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Few buyers attended a foreclosure auction of two properties at the Bergen County Courthouse.

It was a far cry from the typical sheriff’s auction of mid-2010, when 15 or more properties were auctioned weekly and up to 100 investors crowded the courthouse’s large jury room.

Sheriff’s auctions are among the most visible symbols of the housing crisis, which left many homeowners saddled with mortgages they couldn’t afford. But foreclosure auctions have slowed dramatically since questions arose more than a year ago about “robo-signing” — that is, sloppy paperwork by mortgage lenders and servicers.

Requesting a review

Homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 can have their cases reviewed to see if their mortgage companies did anything wrong, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said last week.

Mortgage servicers were to begin mailing letters last week to borrowers, telling them how to request an independent review if they believe they were injured by flawed foreclosure proceedings. If the reviewer finds they were harmed, the customer may receive compensation or another remedy.

The companies are America’s Servicing Co., Aurora Loan Services, Bank of America, Beneficial, Chase, Citibank, CitiFinancial, CitiMortgage, Countrywide, EMC, Everbank/Everhome, First Horizon, GMAC Mortgage, HFC, HSBC, IndyMac Mortgage Services, Metlife Bank, National City, PNC, Sovereign Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, U.S. Bank, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo.

Requests for review must be received by April 30, 2012. For more information, visit IndependentForeclosureReview.com.

Though lenders were given the go-ahead in August to start foreclosing again in New Jersey after showing a judge they were following the rules, they have been slow to resume activity.

The reason: an August appellate court decision, Bank of New York v. Laks, according to Kevin Wolfe, head of the state’s Office of Foreclosure. In that case, the court dismissed a foreclosure, finding the lender violated the state Fair Foreclosure Act because it didn’t properly identify itself in a notice sent to the troubled homeowners.

Under new state court rules, lawyers working for foreclosing plaintiffs have to personally certify that they have checked the facts behind a foreclosure filing with an employee of the lender or the lender’s servicer. Many have indicated to Wolfe that they are reluctant to sign such a certification, because they’re concerned that the lender’s paperwork may not meet the requirements set out in the Laks decision.

E. Robert Levy, executive director of the Mortgage Bankers Association of New Jersey, said he believed there was no “real question about the validity of the loans being put through the foreclosure process.”

“The money is still owed; it’s just a matter of making sure you meet the procedural requirements, and we agree the requirements should be met,” Levy said.

Advocates for distressed homeowners say it’s only reasonable to ask lenders to get the paperwork right when it involves a matter as serious as taking someone’s home.

“Any delay that there is in New Jersey is occurring only because lenders haven’t followed the law,” said Margaret Lambe Jurow, a lawyer with Legal Services of New Jersey, who has represented homeowners in foreclosure cases. “Had they filed these things properly, they’d be in and out.”

The implications go beyond the losses suffered by homeowners and lenders. Housing analysts say the troubled real estate market can’t recover until the large number of distressed properties are finally sold. The properties make up a so-called “shadow inventory” — not on the market yet, and likely to ultimately sell at a large discount to other properties, pulling down housing values. Foreclosed homes typically sell at a discount of 20 percent or more, according to research.

Mortgage paperwork issues stem from the fact that most mortgages are not held by the local bank; they’re bundled into securities and resold to investors. In these cases, the company that a homeowner writes monthly checks to — the mortgage servicer — probably does not actually own the loan.

In the Laks case, for example, Sarah Laks’ mortgage was serviced by Countrywide Home Loans, but the actual owner was a trust managed by the Bank of New York. When Laks, of Lakewood, defaulted on the loan, she got a notice of intention to foreclose from Countrywide, but it did not mention the real owner, as required by the state’s 1995 Fair Foreclosure Act.

A lender’s attorney who spoke on condition of anonymity said that in the years since the Fair Foreclosure Act was passed, it’s been very common for these notices to name only the servicer, not the actual holder of the loan, as required by the Laks decision.

When mortgages were being written and sold to investors at a furious pace during the housing boom, the mortgage machine allegedly cut corners on recording who actually owns a mortgage and, therefore, has the right to foreclose.

 

 

Federal investigation

 

The questions over robo-signing slowed foreclosures to a trickle this year in New Jersey, after the state’s chief justice ordered six big lenders to show they were following the rules last December.

As a result, New Jersey homeowners are staying in their homes, on average, for more than 2 1/2 years without paying their mortgages before they are evicted, according to RealtyTrac, a California company that tracks the foreclosure market.

On a national level, the mortgage servicers’ questionable foreclosure practices are under investigation by the federal government and most of the nation’s attorneys general. The investigation is expected to result in a settlement reported at $25 billion; in exchange, lenders would be released from some legal claims.

Ira Rheingold of the National Association of Consumer Advocates predicted that the attorneys general’s settlement will include a road map for how lenders can establish ownership of a mortgage in cases where the transfer was poorly documented.

For example, he said, lawyers sometimes use a “lost note affidavit,” where a lender’s employee with knowledge of the loan signs an affidavit certifying that the lender actually owns it, even if the documentation is missing.

“How are you going to prove ownership — that really is the big question,” Rheingold said. “At some point people really need to be able to sell their houses. … If there’s a mortgage, somebody is owed the money. How do you straighten out this mess?”

Questions about this chain of ownership are being watched by the title insurance industry. In a recent case in Massachusetts, a court ruled that a buyer who purchased a property after an improper foreclosure was not the legal owner.

So far, there haven’t been enough such cases to make title insurance companies back off from writing policies, according to the American Land Title Association. But the industry is continuing to watch the issue, an ALTA official said.

It’s not clear when the foreclosure pipeline will start moving again in New Jersey, though foreclosure lawyers are watching another case that brings up issues similar to the Laks case. That case, U.S. Bank v. Guillaume, is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court soon. In the Guillaume case, an appellate court made the opposite decision as was made in the Laks case, and upheld a foreclosure action against an East Orange homeowner who said the notice of intention to foreclose didn’t properly identify the lender.

The lender’s lawyer, speaking anonymously, said the Supreme Court could get the pipeline moving again by requiring that the lender be identified in notices going to troubled homeowners, as the Laks ruling requires — but only in the future, not in cases already filed.

“We’re hoping the Guillaume case clears this up,” said the lawyer.

E-mail: lynn@northjersey.com

D.C. Circuit to Consider Case of Art Taken by Nazis

September 13, 2011 Leave a comment

D.C. Circuit to Consider Case of Art Taken by Nazis

The Hungarian government is appealing the denial of its bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by heirs to a Jewish Hungarian art collector demanding the return of art taken by the Nazis and Hungarian officials during World War II.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle denied the bulk of the Hungarian government’s motion to dismiss on Sept. 1, finding that the descendants of Baron Mor Lipot Herzog could sue for the return of pieces of Herzog’s collection currently in the possession of Hungarian cultural institutions.

Attorneys for the Hungarian defendants filed notice (PDF) Monday that they intend to challenge Huvelle’s ruling before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Nixon Peabody partner Thaddeus Stauber, lead counsel for the Hungarian government, said in a statement that his client anticipates “asking the U.S. appellate court to acknowledge that the relevant international agreements and compensation programs in Hungary and the U.S. long ago resolved any modern day claims to the remaining artworks.”

The Hungarian government had argued in its motion to dismiss that it already settled claims to art and other items taken during World War II over the last few decades, including the Herzog collection.

Huvelle did dismiss part of the heirs’ complaint, deferring to a previous ruling by a Hungarian court finding that 11 of the more than 40 pieces in question from the collection did belong to the Hungarian defendants, which include the Hungarian government as well as the Hungarian National Gallery, the Museum of Fine Arts, the Museum of Applied Arts and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics.

Michael Shuster of New York’s Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, who is representing Herzog’s heirs, said Tuesday morning that “the issues that Judge Huvelle dealt with in her opinion are all well-grounded in…other precedents.”

“It’s unfortunate that they continue to want to avoid addressing the merits,” he said.

In the Sept. 1 opinion (PDF), Huvelle found that Herzog’s heirs offered “substantial and non-frivolous” claims that the Hungarian government violated international law in taking the paintings, meaning the Hungarian defendants are not immune against litigation under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Governments are given wide breadth to take property from its citizens, Huvelle wrote, but in this case, the Hungarian government was accused to taking property from Jewish individuals whose citizenship rights had been stripped away under anti-Semitic laws in effect at the time.

According to the complaint (PDF), Herzog’s family had attempted to hide the collection, which included several thousand pieces, after Hungary allied with Nazi Germany, but it was discovered and seized. The plaintiffs in the case are three of Herzog’s great-grandchildren, who are suing on behalf of all of his heirs.

New Jersey Mortgage Default Rate Is Country’s Third Highest, Report Says

August 25, 2011 1 comment

New Jersey Mortgage Default Rate Is Country’s Third Highest, Report Says

A new report by the Mortgage Bankers Association says New Jersey is third in the nation in the number of loans either in foreclosure or on the brink.

Mary Pat Gallagher

08-23-2011

A new report by the Mortgage Bankers Association says New Jersey is third in the nation in the number of loans either in foreclosure or on the brink.

More than one in 10 New Jersey mortgage loans are already in foreclosure or are 90 days or more in arrears, says the association’s National Delinquency Survey for the second quarter of 2011, which looked at almost 43.9 million mortgage loans across the country, including 1,252,958 in New Jersey.

The state’s 11.36 percent rate of “seriously delinquent” mortgages was third highest in the U.S. Florida topped the list with 18.68 percent, followed by Nevada, with 14.34 percent.

At the opposite end of the scale were North Dakota with a 1.76 percent rate, and Alaska with 2.24.

In addition to serious delinquencies, another 3.18 percent of New Jersey mortgages are 30 days late and an additional 1.24 percent are 60 days late, says the report, released Monday..

New Jersey’s ranking was driven by a high number of pending foreclosures, nearly 8 percent. Again, only Florida (14.39 percent) and Nevada (8.15 percent) have more.

The report does not state the number of loans in foreclosure, but Kevin Wolfe, assistant director for the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Civil Practice Division, says 107,464 residential foreclosure cases filed since 2009 remain open. He points out that the figure includes settled cases for which no stipulations of dismissal have been filed.

The glut of foreclosures is the product of a flood of filings that crested in 2009, at 66,717, including non residential foreclosures, and dropped to 58,445 for 2010.

Filings slowed to a trickle at the end of last year, after the judiciary froze uncontested residential foreclosures by the six biggest lenders so it could address robo-signing and other abuses that had come to light.

Wolfe estimates that those six — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, CitiBank, Ally Financial, OneWest Bank and Wells Fargo — file at least 70 percent and possibly more than 80 percent of uncontested residential foreclosures.

Their sizeable share of foreclosures has been evident in the precipitous plunge in filings since theirs were suspended last December. Only 6,090 foreclosures had been filed in 2011 as of the end of July, a drop of 90 percent from 2010.

Monthly filings fell from 4,358 last November, the month before the freeze, to 399 in January. They have inched back up since then, to 1,368 for July.

Filings are sure to rebound much faster now that the courts have resumed processing foreclosures for five of the big six foreclosers. All but Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC Mortgage, got the go-ahead to resume foreclosures during the week of Aug. 15.

The five persuaded a court-appointed special master, retired judge Richard Williams, that they have stopped offensive practices — such as signing court documents that falsely stated personal knowledge of the facts of the mortgage; failing to review documents on which certifications or affidavits were based; and forging signatures — and have taken steps to prevent recurrence.

In her Dec. 20, 2010, order, Mercer County Presiding General Equity Judge Mary Jacobson said the court had “become increasingly concerned about the accuracy and reliability of documents submitted to the Office of Foreclosure” and was acting on an exigent basis “to protect the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process.”

In addition to requiring lenders to prove they have adopted and are following proper procedures, the Court has amended the rules governing foreclosure.

Among other changes to Rules 4:64-1 and 2 that took effect in June, lenders’ lawyers are now required to attach a Certification or Affidavit of Diligent Inquiry to foreclosure complaints and motions describing the lawyer’s communication with an employee of the lender or loan servicer who has personally reviewed the mortgage file and confirmed the accuracy of the information in court filings.

The courts are bracing for a spurt in new filings as well as “the large pent-up pool of cases to be moved,” by adding staff at the Office of Foreclosure and around the state, says Wolfe.

As of Tuesday, he had not yet seen the anticipated surge in filings but planned to talk with Williams about how to handle the monitoring of foreclosure filings to ensure that the new safeguards are being followed. The six lenders agreed to the monitoring in a stipulation in March.

The press release accompanying the Mortgage Bankers report suggested another cause for the New Jersey backlog. It called the existence of a judicial foreclosure system, which some states like California and Michigan do not have, the “single biggest factor” in why some states have big backlogs because it “lengthen[s] the foreclosure timeline and increase[s] the number of loans that sit in foreclosure, all other things being equal.”