Foreclosure appeal rights
Cathleen Perez, et vir v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Cathleen and Alejandro Perez asked the Supreme Court to review the New Jersey appeals court’s unexplained refusal to restore their timely appeal of a final order foreclosing on their home and a related order for additional payments.
- Who it affects
- The denial ends the Perezes' effort to get Supreme Court review, but does not resolve whether the state appeals court should have restored their appeal.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
They argue that refusing their appeal after they substantially corrected filing defects violated due process by cutting off review of decisions affecting their home and financial liability.
The dispute concerns whether the Perezes could appeal the foreclosure and payment orders after the state appeals court declined to restore their filing.
Question presented
Whether a state appellate court’s unexplained refusal to reinstate a timely first appeal as of right from a final foreclosure judgment and related additional-sums order, after appellants substantially cured nonjurisdictional briefing and appendix deficiencies and invoked the court’s own procedure to accept the filing as submitted, constitutes an adequate state procedural ground and comports with the Due Process Clause when it permanently forecloses appellate review of orders affecting ownership, possession, and monetary liability on a home.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.