MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C. VS. STEVE HOSANG(L-824-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3853-15T3

MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C.
CURRENT ASSIGNEE (CHASE
BANK, USA, N.A., ORIGINAL
CREDITOR),

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

STEVE HOSANG,

Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________

Submitted June 26, 2017 – Decided July 13, 2017

Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No.
L-824-13.

Steve HoSang, appellant pro se.

Pressler and Pressler, L.L.P., attorneys for
respondent (Lawrence J. McDermott, Jr., on the
brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from an April 1, 2016 order granting

plaintiff's motion to vacate an administrative dismissal of the
complaint and entering default judgment. We reverse and remand

for further proceedings.

In March 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages

related to defendant's alleged credit card debt. In June 2013,

defendant attempted to answer the complaint, but the clerk's office

returned the answer as non-conforming. The court entered default

in August 2013. In February 2014, the court dismissed the

complaint for lack of prosecution. The matter remained dormant

for approximately two years.

In March 2016, plaintiff filed its motion to vacate the

dismissal order and enter default judgment. Defendant opposed the

motion essentially arguing that the statute of limitations barred

plaintiff's complaint, and that plaintiff failed to show it was

an assignee of the original lender. The judge entered the order

under review, which awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of

$22,961.72 plus costs, without rendering a statement of reasons,

providing conclusions of law, or indicating whether he considered

defendant's opposition.

On appeal, defendant maintains that plaintiff's complaint is

time barred. Defendant also contends that the court lacked

jurisdiction, and that there is insufficient evidence to support

the judgment. Defendant urges us to reverse the order and enter

any remedy that is just.

2 A-3853-15T3
 As required by Rule 1:7-4, trial judges must "by an opinion

or memorandum 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[.]" See also

In re Farnkopf, 363 N.J. Super. 382, 390 (App. Div. 2003)

(requiring an adequate explanation of the basis for a court's

action). The absence of findings or conclusions has hampered our

review. On remand, the court is free to re-open the matter to

more fully develop the record and adjudicate plaintiff's motion

to vacate the administrative dismissal and request for default

judgment.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not

retain jurisdiction.

3 A-3853-15T3