Real Property – Mortgage Foreclosure – Substitute Trustees – Notice – Barcodes

In re Adams (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-036-17, 9 pp.) (Mark Davis, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County Superior Court (James Morgan, J.) N.C. App. Unpub.

Holding: Where respondent received proper notice of the foreclosure proceeding, a new substitute trustee was not required to file and serve an amended notice of hearing when it became the new substitute trustee.

We affirm the trial court’s order authorizing the Bank of New York Melon (BONY) to foreclose on respondent’s property.

Respondent cites no legal authority in support of his argument that the new substitute trustee’s counsel was not permitted to submit an affidavit regarding the service of process made upon respondent by the former substitute trustee. Respondent does not deny that he was, in fact, properly served with notice, and a copy of the return receipt he signed was attached to counsel’s affidavit. Respondent has failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred in ruling that respondent received proper notice in compliance with G.S. § 45-21.16.

BONY showed that it was the holder of respondent’s promissory note. The note was indorsed from respondent’s lender in blank. BONY produced a copy of the note at the foreclosure proceeding along with a supporting affidavit. Based on this evidence, the trial court found that BONY “is the holder” of the note, which “constitutes a valid debt to [BONY].”

Respondent asserts that three different versions of the note were produced by the original trustee, the first substitute trustee, and the new substitute trustee. However, the only way the documents differ is that barcodes appearing underneath the page number at the bottom of the first page of such document are different. We are not convinced that these slight variations were sufficient to preclude the trial court from finding that BONY was indeed the note’s holder.

Affirmed.