Two recent unpublished decisions from the NJ Appellate Division overturned the trial court for failing to make factual findings.
Markferding v. Markferding Case
In the case of Markferding v. Markferding, Not Reported, A-380-23, Decided November 22, 2024, the defendant appealed a trial court decision imputing him income for child support purposes. The appellate division reversed and noted, that while it was ok for the trial court to impute income, since the defendant repeatedly failed to submit financial information to the court, the trial court needed to articulate findings of facts and conclusions of law establishing the basis for the imputed amount.
After a lengthy recitation of the facts in the record and the relevant law, the appellate division simply concluded that the trial court had failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Montesdoeca v. Lopez Case
In the case of Montesdoeca v. Lopez, Not Reported, A-3074-22, Decided November 19, 2024, the plaintiff appealed an order converting a prior award of counsel fees into a judgment. The decision summarizes the record in about 2 paragraphs and then notes that the trial court did not place any findings of fact and did not cite any legal authority for the decision.
Rule 1:7-4 requires a trial court to state clearly factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions, so that parties and the appellate courts have notice of the rationale underlying those conclusions. This may be done in a written decision, or it may be spoken into the record with a notation on the order that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were placed on the record on a specific date. This must be done in every case that is tried without a jury and on every motion decided by a written order. Notably, it is only required in situations where the decisions is ‘appealable as of right’ or in criminal matters on a ‘motion to dismiss an indictment, accusation or complaint, or on an application for diversion, change or reduction of sentence, or other disposition of a criminal matter.’
The rationale is simple. Without a statement of reasons, the appellate court has no idea what the trial court was thinking. Many decisions note that the court of review is left to conjecture as to what the judge may have had in mind. Meaningful appellate review is inhibited, if not impossible, unless the trial court judge sets forth the reasons for the opinion. Absent factually supported legal conclusions, the appeals court can and should overturn the trial court’s decision.
What does this mean for you? If you have a motion that is decided by a trial court judge, then that judge is required to 1) make findings of fact, and then 2) correlate those facts to the law. If you have a decision and you can’t understand what facts the judge relied upon or what law applies to your case, then you may have a basis for an appeal.
Contact Our New Jersey Family Law Attorneys for an Initial Consultation to Discuss Your Case
Contact the experienced attorneys at LaBletta & Walters who can help you navigate through this complicated area of the law. The decision of the court is binding and final and you are obligated to comply. If the court made a mistake, then there are strict timelines in which to file to protect your rights.