NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4254-16T4
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NIR DEGANI,
Defendant-Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted May 24, 2018 – Decided June 15, 2018
Before Judges Gilson and Mayer.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
L-8644-00.
Pressler Felt & Warshaw, LLP, attorneys for
appellant (Lawrence J. McDermott, Jr., on the
brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff New Century Financial Services, Inc. appeals from
the following orders regarding its collection action against
defendant Nir DeGani: a January 6, 2017 order vacating a default
judgment; a January 13, 2017 order dismissing the complaint without
prejudice; a March 31, 2017 order denying a motion to suppress
defendant's answer; and a May 12, 2017 order denying
reconsideration of the March 31 order. We reverse and remand.
Defendant obtained a Chase Bank credit card on which he
accumulated approximately $14,000 in debt. Plaintiff purchased
defendant's credit card debt. In October 2000, plaintiff filed
suit against defendant to collect the outstanding debt and accrued
interest.
Defendant was served with the complaint but failed to respond.
On February 7, 2001, a default judgment was entered against
defendant for $17,051.61.
In or around July 2001, defendant moved to vacate the default
judgment. The motion was granted on August 3, 2001. After
defendant filed an answer, plaintiff propounded discovery. When
defendant failed to respond to the discovery requests, plaintiff
again moved for default. On March 21, 2003, plaintiff obtained a
default judgment against defendant in the amount of $23,190.96,
plus costs.
In December 2016, defendant moved to vacate the 2003 default
judgment. The motion judge granted defendant's motion as
"unopposed." However, plaintiff claimed it was not timely or
properly served with defendant's motion. Plaintiff contended the
2 A-4254-16T4
motion clerk improperly designated the filing date of defendant's
motion as the return date of the motion. Plaintiff argued it
submitted timely opposition to defendant's motion had the motion
been heard on the correct return date. The motion judge's order
granting defendant's motion to vacate default judgment was signed
on January 6, 2017. Plaintiff reasoned the judge had not reviewed
its opposition to the motion, filed on January 6, 2017, before
granting defendant's application. The January 6, 2017 order failed
to include a statement of reasons in support of the relief granted.
On January 13, 2017, the judge entered an order dismissing
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. There were no written
or oral findings and legal conclusions regarding the judge's
January 13, 2017 order. Nor was there any explanation why the
judge issued the order absent a motion.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the January 6, 2017
order. Plaintiff requested oral argument on the reconsideration
motion. However, on February 17, 2017, the motion judge denied
the motion without hearing oral argument.
Plaintiff also filed a motion to suppress defendant's answer
for failure to provide discovery. See R. 4:23-5(a)(2). In a
written statement of reasons, the judge denied plaintiff's motion
on March 31, 2017. In his order, the judge wrote "[t]rial in this
matter is scheduled for May 15, 2017." The judge's notation
3 A-4254-16T4
scheduling a trial conflicted with the January 13, 2017 order
dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
In April 2017, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the
March 31, 2017 order denying the motion to suppress defendant's
answer. On May 12, 2017, without conducting oral argument, the
judge denied plaintiff's reconsideration motion, noting "pursuant
to this [c]ourt's January 13, 2017 order, plaintiff's complaint
is still dismissed without prejudice." There was no statement of
reasons supporting the judge's January 13, 2017 order. Thus, the
May 12, 2017 order, relying on the judge's reasoning in support
of the January 13, 2017 order, provided no explanation for the
denial of plaintiff's reconsideration motion.
Plaintiff raises various appellate arguments related to the
orders on appeal. We need not reach the merits of plaintiff's
arguments based on our determination that the orders must be
vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Rule 1:7-4 requires a trial court, "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." The failure
of a trial court to meet the requirements of the rule "constitutes
a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate
4 A-4254-16T4
court." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (quoting
Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adj. Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4
(App. Div. 1976)).
It is the obligation of a trial court to state its factual
findings and then connect those findings to the legal conclusions
in support of the ruling. See Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445
N.J. Super. 574, 594-95 (App. Div. 2016) (citing Monte v. Monte,
212 N.J. Super. 557, 565 (App. Div. 1986)). The failure to advance
reasons in support of a judicial decision results in our
speculating 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) (quoting
Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Checchio, 335 N.J. Super. 495, 498
(App. Div. 2000)).
For these reasons, the orders on appeal are 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").
5 A-4254-16T4
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
6 A-4254-16T4