CHARLES J. KRAUT VS. ERICA F. DIGIOVANNI (L-5384-19, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 binding only 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-3664-19
CHARLES J. KRAUT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERICA F. DIGIOVANNI,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted March 1, 2021 – Decided April 21, 2021
Before Judges Currier and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-5384-19.
Alfred J. Petit-Clair, Jr., attorney for appellant.
Miriam R. Rubin, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff brought this suit against defendant for personal injuries he
sustained in a motor vehicle accident. At the time, plaintiff was driving a Ford
Econoline Wagon that was titled to him in New Jersey but not registered or
insured. Because plaintiff had not insured the vehicle, defendant moved for
summary judgment, asserting plaintiff was precluded from pursuing his claims
for economic and non-economic damages under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5.
In opposing the motion, plaintiff presented several arguments: (1) he was
not the owner of the vehicle; (2) the wagon was not a "motor vehicle" as defined
under N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a); and (3) he thought his employer had insured the
vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff argued he was exempt from the strictures of
N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5.
The trial court granted summary judgment. The May 8, 2020 order stated:
"If . . . [p]laintiff can provide proof that the vehicle actually was insured, the
[c]ourt will entertain a motion to vacate this order."
On appeal, plaintiff renews his arguments. Because the trial court did not
give any reasons for its decision as required under Rule 1:7-4(a), we are
constrained to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.
Rule 1:7-4(a) states that a trial judge "shall, by an opinion or memorandum
decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state [his or her] conclusions
of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury . . . ." "The rule requires specific
findings of fact and conclusions of law." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J.
A-3664-19
2
Court Rules, cmt. 1 on R. 1:7-4 (2018). See also R. 4:46-2(c) ("The court shall
find the facts and state its conclusions in accordance with R. 1:7-4.").
Here, defendant raised a statutory bar to plaintiff's claim for damages. In
response, plaintiff presented several arguments. The trial court did not make
any findings of fact or analysis of the applicable law to explain the grant of
summary judgment. As our Court has stated, the "[f]ailure to perform that duty
'constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.'"
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 569-70 (1980) (quoting Kenwood Assocs. v.
Bd. of Adj. Englewood, 141 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1976)). "Naked
conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of R[ule] 1:7-4. Rather, the trial court
must state clearly its factual findings and correlate them with the relevant legal
conclusions." Id. at 570.
Therefore, we vacate the order for summary judgment and remand to the
trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with Rule
1:7-4(a). The parties shall provide their appellate submissions to the court
within twenty days of the date of this opinion.
Reversed, vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3664-19
3