Co. v. Estate of Lamanna, 181 N.J.Super. 149, 155-56, 436 A.2d 965 (Law Div.1981) (“New Jersey courts have long recognized foreign judgments by confession and have held that they are entitled to full faith and credit.... No public policy [in New Jersey] denies recognition to a foreign judgment by confession”). Rather, the law is clear: “Entry of judgment based upon a warrant to confess judgment does not ... necessarily offend due process, as long as the due process requirements of reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard are knowingly and voluntarily waived.” Tara Enters., supra, 369 N.J.Super. at 56, 848 A.2d 27 (citing Lamanna, supra, 181 N.J.Super. at 156, 436 A.2d 965). See also D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 187, 92 S.Ct. 775, 783, 31 L.Ed.2d 124, 135 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Maryland Court Rule 2-611 governs confessed
holding confessed judgments are not per se violative of the fourteenth amendment due process protections as reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard could be waived holding that procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that a predeprivation opportunity to be heard satisfies the due process clause holding basic elements of due process are notice and a right to be heard recognizing that the essential requisites of procedural due process are notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard