What the defendants allegedly have in common could be the bigger story
A new federal lawsuit alleges a New Jersey sheriff's sale was executed on an expired writ, with conflicts allegedly running through the entire foreclosure chain.
The case, filed on March 28, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, names more than twenty defendants, including Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2007-1, along with law firms, title companies, county officials, and a property buyer. The case is in its earliest stages and no court has made any determination on the merits.
The dispute centers on a January 3, 2024 sheriff's sale of a residential property in Vineland, New Jersey. According to the filing, the Alias Writ of Execution that was supposed to authorize the sale had already expired on December 1, 2023 — thirty-three days before the sale took place. A Pluries Writ of Execution was issued on November 22, 2023, but was allegedly never published, advertised, or served as New Jersey law requires.
The result, the lawsuit claims, was a three-way mismatch in the official records: the Sheriff's Deed references the Pluries Writ, the Return of Execution references the expired Alias Writ, and neither was in effect on the day of the sale.
The filing also takes aim at Deutsche Bank's authority to foreclose in the first place. The trust that was supposed to hold the loan — NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust Series 2007-1 — had a stated closing date of February 2007. But Deutsche Bank did not appear in Cumberland County property records until June 2009, more than two years later. The plaintiffs argue this timing gap means the loan was never properly placed into the trust.
The loan's origins draw scrutiny as well. NovaStar Mortgage, the original lender, surrendered its New Jersey consumer loan license on August 13, 2007 under a consent order citing failure to provide accurate TILA disclosures, failure to disclose fees and costs, charging of unlawful fees, and failure to maintain adequate records. The filing alleges that four conflicting Truth in Lending Act disclosure statements were generated at the time of the 2006 refinance.
For mortgage professionals, the most noteworthy allegation may involve the relationships among the defendants. According to the filing, the firm that handled the foreclosure, Stern & Eisenberg, PC, shares common ownership, personnel, and documented address connections with both a title company, Terra Abstract, LLC, and another law firm, Eisenberg Gold & Agrawal, PC, which represents the third-party purchaser. Terra Abstract was listed as the return address on recorded foreclosure documents filed by Stern & Eisenberg. The lawsuit characterizes this arrangement as a racketeering enterprise under federal and state RICO statutes.
The filing further alleges that a single Cumberland County Sheriff's Office employee served as both the witness and the notary on the Sheriff's Deed recorded February 5, 2024 — dual roles the plaintiffs say are mutually exclusive and render the notarization defective.
The four plaintiffs — Christina Sofkos Seitis, Stamatios Seitis, Eleni Seitis, and Eleni Sofkos — are representing themselves. They are seeking damages, a court declaration that the sheriff's sale and the deed are void, and penalties against the sheriffs who allegedly carried out the sale on the expired writ.
The case is Seitis et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03365.
