NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R.1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0833-16T2
JOHN C. STOLLSTEIMER and CHERYL
R. STOLLSTEIMER, h/w,
individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORP. d/b/a
FOULKE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
d/b/a CHERRY HILL DODGE
CHRYSLER JEEP d/b/a CHERRY HILL
TRIPLEX,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted May 9, 2017 - Decided May 23, 2017
Before Judges Sumners and Mayer.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, Docket
No. L-2255-16.
Law Office of Paul DePetris and Lewis G.
Adler, attorneys for appellants (Mr. Adler and
Mr. DePetris, of counsel and on the briefs).
Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., attorneys for
respondent (Laura D. Ruccolo, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs John C. Stollsteimer and Cheryl R. Stollsteimer
appeal from the trial court's order dated September 20, 2016,
granting the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendant Foulke
Management Corp. d/b/a Foulke Management Corporation d/b/a Cherry
Hill Dodge Chrysler Jeep d/b/a Cherry Hill Triplex. Because the
trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 1:7-
4(a), we vacate the order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and
remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
We briefly recite the procedural history and facts in this
case. In its motion to dismiss the complaint, defendant requested
the trial court enforce an arbitration clause contained in
documents governing the sale of an automobile purchased by
plaintiffs. The trial court found the sales documents signed by
plaintiffs compelled arbitration of disputes and therefore
dismissed plaintiffs' complaint.
Despite defendant's request for oral argument, the trial
court did not entertain argument on the motion. Plaintiffs claim
oral argument was important as defendant's reply brief contained
"new" facts, and the failure to permit argument deprived plaintiffs
of an opportunity to address the "new" facts.
On September 20, 2016, the trial court granted defendant's
motion based on the papers submitted by the parties. The entirety
2 A-0833-16T2
of the trial court's oral decision, including findings of facts
and conclusions of law, was set forth in three paragraphs. The
trial court did not state the legal reasons supporting dismissal
of plaintiffs' complaint. The trial court did not cite any case,
court rule or statute in support of dismissal of plaintiffs'
complaint. Nor did the trial court analyze the inconsistent
language compelling arbitration in each of the sales documents
signed by plaintiffs.
On this appeal, plaintiffs addressed the trial court's
misapplication of the law governing arbitration clauses. However,
we need not reach the merits of plaintiffs' arguments based on our
determination that the trial court's order must be vacated and the
matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Rule 1:7-4 requires a trial court, "by opinion or memorandum
of decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its
conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a
written order that is appealable as of right." The failure of a
trial court to meet the requirements of the rule "constitutes a
disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate
court." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (citations
omitted).
It is the obligation of a trial court to state its factual
findings and then connect those findings to the legal conclusions
3 A-0833-16T2
in support of the court's ruling. See Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J.
Super. 557, 564-65 (App. Div. 1986). The failure to advance
reasons in support of a judicial decision results in the reviewing
court having to speculate as to the trial court's thinking. See
Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990).
"Neither the parties nor the appellate court is 'well-served by
an opinion devoid of analysis or citation to even a single case.'"
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289, 300 (App. Div.
2009) (citing Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Checchio, 335
N.J. Super. 495, 498 (App. Div. 2000)).
For these reasons, the order dismissing plaintiffs' complaint
is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should permit
oral argument in accordance with Rule 1:6-2(d) (motions requesting
oral argument, other than pretrial discovery or matters addressed
to the calendar, "shall be granted as of right"). Additionally,
to the extent defendant relied on matters outside the pleading as
part of the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, the trial
court should treat the motion as one for summary judgment and
require the parties to comply with the requirements of Rule 4:46-
2. See R. 4:6-2.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
4 A-0833-16T2