ELIZABETH KIRWAN v. ERIC ZANKEL

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 only binding 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

ELIZABETH KIRWAN,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ERIC ZANKEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________

October 17, 2016

Submitted October 5, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Haas and Currier.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, Docket No. DC-2833-15.

Eric Zankel, appellant pro se.

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Eric Zankel appeals the Special Civil Part order awarding plaintiff Elizabeth Kirwan additional money for property damage sustained to her vehicle after she was previously compensated by defendant's insurance company for the loss of the car. Because we find the judge failed to give any reasons for his award of damages, we are constrained to vacate the order and remand to the trial court.

At trial, defendant acknowledged that he had struck plaintiff's parked car. He argued, however, that his insurance company had already compensated plaintiff for the full value of her 2002 Toyota Corolla1 in the amount of $3363.65 for property damage.

Plaintiff did not dispute the valuation of her car as appraised by the insurance carrier; instead, she advised that she was seeking additional funds in order to replace the car. She testified that she had found a comparable vehicle online that was listed for sale at $5995.

After several adjournments in order to allow defendant the opportunity to find plaintiff a comparable car she could purchase for $3363, the judge issued a written order on August 12, 2015, entering a judgment of $5082 including costs.

On appeal, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to present any evidence that the fair value of the car was anything other than the monies paid to her by the insurance company. He, on the other hand, presented proofs to the court, using information from the Kelley Blue Book,2 which demonstrated that the insurance valuation of the vehicle was higher than both the trade-in value or private sale value listed in the Blue Book.

The judge gave no reasons for his decision either on the record or in the written order. See R. 1:7-4. In our review, therefore, we are unable to determine the basis for his ruling. Plaintiff received $3363 for the loss of her vehicle; she testified she saw a comparable car online for $5995. Without any support for his decision, we cannot discern how the judge came to the decision to award plaintiff $5082.

We, therefore, vacate the order and remand to the special civil part for additional findings or a new trial if appropriate. The remand is to be completed within forty-five days of the date of this opinion.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

1 Plaintiff testified that the car had approximately 150,000 miles on it at the time of the accident.

2 Kelly Blue Book is a vehicle valuation and research company that publishes information in print and online to help consumers buy and sell cars.