URI DOBRINER v. HENRY WILLIAMS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

URI DOBRINER,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HENRY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

December 27, 2013

Submitted December 11, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Fasciale and Haas.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-5349-10.

Henry Williams, appellant pro se.

Santo J. Bonanno, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a September 14, 2012 order denying his motion to vacate a lien placed on personal property. He contends primarily that the property did not belong to him. We remand and direct the judge to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Defendant borrowed $25,000 from plaintiff and did not repay the money by the agreed-upon date. Plaintiff sued defendant seeking repayment. At the proof hearing, defendant admitted that he owed the $25,000 plus interest. In May 2011, the court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff $25,000, plus interest, attorney fees, and costs. Plaintiff then sought to collect on the judgment.

In November 2011, plaintiff filed a writ of execution for the sheriff to levy on defendant's property. Defendant refused entry to his house and submitted certifications to the court stating that his deceased mother and wife bequeathed all the contents of the house to his son. As part of plaintiff's effort to gain entry into defendant's house, plaintiff's wife submitted a certification stating that before plaintiff made the loan, defendant showed her and plaintiff antiques and other valuable items in the house and suggested that he would use them as collateral. The court entered an order compelling defendant to allow the sheriff access to the house.

After numerous attempts, the sheriff entered the house and levied on artwork and other property. Defendant filed a motion to vacate the levy, contending that he did not own the property. Defendant's son submitted a certification stating generally that he owned the contents of the house through inheritance. The judge denied defendant's motion to vacate the lien.

On appeal, defendant argues that his son inherited the property from defendant's mother and therefore the levy was improper because defendant did not own the property levied upon. As a result, defendant contends that the judge erred by denying his motion to vacate the lien.

Pursuant to Rule 1:7-4(a), "the court shall . . . 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 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289, 300-01 (2009). Here, the judge did not make any factual findings or state any legal conclusions. We are therefore uncertain whether plaintiff properly levied upon defendant's property.