HONG SHAU v. SHANYU SHAU

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0271-05T10271-05T1

HONG SHAU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SHANYU WU,

Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________________________________

 

Argued March 15, 2006 - Decided May 15, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Humphreys.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County,

Matrimonial Part, Docket No. FM-02-181-04.

Hong Shau, Appellant pro se.

Shanyu Wu, Respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff and defendant are divorced. Pursuant to their property settlement and support agreement, they have joint legal and residential custody of their two children. The children attend the Demarest public schools.

Defendant moved to transfer the children to the Ridgewood public schools. Plaintiff opposed the motion and cross moved to amend the parties' Custody and Shared - Parenting Plan.

After hearing oral argument the judge denied the motions.

He concluded that "there is not sufficient discrepancies in the positions for me to require a plenary hearing, and I make that a specific finding that no plenary hearing is necessary for me to decide this matter on either side." Other than this statement, the judge did not make any findings of fact or state his conclusions of law.

The judge entered two orders. In one order the defendant was restrained from any action to change the children's school from Demarest to Ridgewood. In the other order the judge determined that a plenary hearing was not necessary.

The defendant appeals from the two orders. The defendant contends that the judge did not evaluate the multiple factors that should be considered. We reverse and remand.

R. 1:7-4 provides:

(a) Required Findings. The court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury, on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right . . . .

The court's orders appear to have been final judgments and, therefore, appealable as of right. See R. 2:2-3(a)(1). Hence, the judge should have set forth orally or in writing his findings of fact and conclusions of law. See R. 1:7-4(a). See also McCann v. Biss, 65 N.J. 301, 304 (1974) (judges should always state their reasons so that counsel and an appellate tribunal may be fully informed); Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. Of Adj. Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976) (a trial court has a duty to set forth fully its findings and reasons, factual and legal, for reaching its decision; perfunctory treatment is a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.)

We, therefore, remand this matter to the trial court for compliance with R. 1:7-4(a). The trial court is not bound by its original decision. After rendering its opinion, the trial court will enter an appropriate order. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance

with this opinion.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0271-05T1

May 15, 2006