There are many, many decisions, including this published ruling by Judge Lihotz, that implement the directive of Rule 1:7-4 that a trial judge “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, and also as required by R. 3:29.” Rule 4:46-2, which deals with summary judgment, expressly incorporates this findings and conclusions requirement of Rule 1:7-4. Yet, there are still trial level judges who do not state adequate findings and conclusions. This week, Judges Fasciale and Haas (joined, in one case, by Judge Fuentes) had occasion to face this problem twice, in opinions that substantially paralleled each other in their discussion of the need for findings and conclusions.
Two days ago, Judges Fasciale and Haas issued a per curiam opinion in Inmates Legal Ass’n, Inc. v. Ricci, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2722 (App. Div. Nov. 12, 2013). There, a Law Division judge had granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. The full extent of that court’s reasoning was “there is a motion to dismiss the complaint in lieu of answer. There is no opposition. For the reasons set forth in the moving papers the motion is granted.”
Today, the same two judges, this time joined by Judge Fuentes, decided Ewing Lofts & Studios, LLC v. Pinnacle Towers, LLC, 2013 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2747 (App. Div. Nov. 14, 2013). In that case, the Law Division granted summary judgment against plaintiff but denied the motion of defendant Pinnacle for attorneys’ fees. Neither decision was supported by reasons. Instead, as to summary judgment, the judge stated “I will incorporate into my decision the facts as presented by [plaintiff’s attorney] in his certifications, in his briefs. I’ll incorporate his language, his law, including the certifications of [two affiants] … and I will incorporate the legal argument provided by [Pinnacle’s attorney] as to why I’ve said it myself and essential[ly] will end up reading it into the record in granting the summary judgment motions as filed by [the three defendants].” No reasons were offered as to the decision denying attorneys’ fees.
The Appellate Division reversed in both cases, based on the inadequacy of the findings and conclusions. In both decisions, the panel quoted In re Trust Created by Agreement Dated Dec. 20, 1961, 399 N.J. Super. 237, 253 (App. Div. 2006), aff’d, 194 N.J. 276 (2008). That case stated that “a judge may grant or deny a new trial motion for the reasons posited by the parties rather than issue a statement of its grounds, as long as the judge makes such reliance explicit. The purpose of the rule is to make sure that the court makes its own determination of the matter.” There, however, as Judges Fasciale and Haas stated in the two cases decided this week, the judge “made clear the extent of his agreement with and reliance on [the] proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,” and “supplied a summary of his findings in his oral opinion,” which “provide[d] clear evidence that the trial judge carefully considered the evidentiary record and did not abdicate his decision-making responsibility.”
In the two new cases, in contrast, the Law Division did not state what aspects of the parties’ arguments the Law Division was adopting or why, and there was not even a summary of any findings of fact. As a result, the panel had no basis to review the Law Division’s rulings.
Findings and conclusions need not be fetishized, and not every motion decision requires a law review article. But these new opinions remind trial level judges, and litigants, that judges cannot simply adopt a party’s submission in its entirety without making clear what arguments have been accepted and why, and without at least a summary of the facts that the judge has found.