ALBERINO LEONE and LUCY LEONE v. PETER HAJIYEROU and BEATRIX INVESTMENT CORPORATION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

ALBERINO LEONE and LUCY

LEONE,

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

PETER HAJIYEROU and BEATRIX

INVESTMENT CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________

November 18, 2016

Submitted October 17, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Nugent and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-4539-12.

George J. Cotz, attorney for appellants.

Fontanella Benevento Galluccio & Smith, attorneys for respondents (Eric W. Smith, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendants Peter Hajiyerou and Beatrix Investment Corporation appeal the denial of their motion to quash an information subpoena

and to order the entry of a warrant to satisfy judgment. Because the motion judge failed to give any oral or written reasons for the denial of the motion, we are constrained to vacate the order and remand to the judge for appropriate findings.

Plaintiffs Alberino and Lucy Leone held two mortgages on properties that defendants purchased from them. When defendants defaulted on their obligations, the parties entered into a new agreement in 2012. Defendants did not comply with the 2012 agreement and plaintiffs instituted suit. In a proposal of settlement of the suit, defendants sent plaintiffs' counsel a bank check for $50,000 as well as executed deeds for the properties in lieu of foreclosure. The letter set forth proposed terms of settlement and advised that if the proposal was not accepted, the check and deeds were to be returned. The record is incomplete as to any response to this proposal; however, the check and deeds were not returned.

After defendants and their counsel failed to appear for trial, default, and subsequently, default judgment was entered. Motions to vacate the judgment were presented and denied in September 2014 and February 2015. There was no appeal taken from those orders.

Plaintiffs recorded the deeds in lieu of foreclosure and have since sold the properties. The proceeds from those sales exceeds the amount of the judgment against defendants.

In an attempt to collect the balance of the judgment taken against defendants (plaintiffs cashed the $50,000 bank check), an information subpoena was served on defendants. In lieu of a response, defendants filed a motion to quash the subpoena and direct the entry of a warrant of satisfaction for the judgment. Plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights.

Orders were entered on the same day on both motions. Plaintiffs' form of order was granted. Defendants' motion was denied with the handwritten notation "application is denied."

Defendants contend on appeal that the motion judge erred in not deeming the judgment to be satisfied by the sale of the properties.

The trial court's orders were unaccompanied by "findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining its disposition of the motion," whether "written or oral." R. 1:6-2(f). Under Rule 1:6-2(f), "[i]f no such findings have been made, the court shall append to the order a statement of reasons for its disposition if it concludes that explanation is either necessary or appropriate." The rule directs courts to provide some statement of reasons "where explanation is required by reason of the nature of the matter." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 7 on R. 1:6-2 (2016).

Here, an explanation was required by the nature of the matter. Defendants were entitled to a consideration of their argument as to whether the judgment was satisfied by the sale of the properties. The judge's orders provide no indication that he considered the presented arguments or why specifically he found them unresponsive. As a result, we must vacate the July 28, 2015 order denying defendants' motion and remand for the judge to consider the arguments and issue a statement of reasons as to his determination. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Vacated and remanded.