Maria E. Montesdeoca v. Juan Lopez ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3074-22
MARIA E. MONTESDEOCA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JUAN LOPEZ,
Defendant-Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted October 29, 2024 – Decided November 19, 2024
Before Judges Smith and Vanek.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FD-07-0982-22.
Maria Montesdeoca, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Maria E. Montesdeoca appeals from the portion of a May 5, 2023
Family Part order converting a prior order awarding attorney's fees to defendant
Juan Lopez into a judgment against her. Since the trial court failed to set forth
the reasons for its determination as required under Rule 1:7-4, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings.
We discern the salient facts from the limited record before us. It appears
plaintiff filed a motion in the Family Part on March 3, 2023 addressing parenting
time, custody and child support issues related to the parties' child.1 Defendant
filed a cross-motion which is not detailed in the record. On May 5, 2023, the
Family Part judge made certain rulings on the record regarding parenting time
and claiming the child as an exemption on the parties' tax returns . Defendant's
counsel fee application for the cross-motion was denied.
In the same Family part litigation between the parties, defendant had
previously been awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $2,950 by court order.2
Plaintiff never paid the court-ordered amount to defendant. When the parties
appeared before the court to argue plaintiff's March 3, 2023 motion, the trial
court converted the prior order into a judgment against plaintiff for purposes of
collecting the amount due.
1
The child was not identified by name or age in the record.
2
The prior order awarding defendant counsel fees is not included in the trial
court record.
A-3074-22
2
The trial court did not set forth on the record the factual basis for
converting the unpaid fee award to a judgment against plaintiff and did not set
forth the legal authority underpinning its determination. This appeal followed.3
Although plaintiff filed a notice of appeal only as to the May 5 order
converting the unpaid attorney's fees to a judgment, her challenge to the order
awarding the $2,950 in attorney's fees is grounded in equity, the income
disparity between the parties, and her ability to financially support her three
children. We are unable to substantively review those arguments since plaintiff
failed to appeal the prior order and the record on appeal does not contain that
order or a transcript of the prior decision.
Rule 1:7-4 requires a trial court to "'state clearly [its] factual findings and
correlate them with the relevant legal conclusions, so that parties and the
appellate courts [are] informed of the rationale underlying th[ose]
conclusion[s].'" Avelino-Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574, 594-95
(App. Div. 2016) (quoting Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557, 565
(App.Div.1986)). Rule 1:7-4(a) further provides that "[t]he court shall, by an
opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state
3
Defendant did not file a merits brief.
A-3074-22
3
its conclusions of law thereon in all actions tried without a jury, on every motion
decided by a written order . . . ." See Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275,
282 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting R. 1:7-4).
Without a statement of reasons, "we are left to conjecture as to what the
judge may have had in mind." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App.
Div. 1990). "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth
the reasons for his or her opinion." Ibid.Here, the trial court did not set forth any factual findings for converting
the apparent prior attorney's fee award of $2,950 to a judgment against plaintiff.
No specific order was referenced on the record. Nor did the trial court articulate
any legal authority underpinning its reasoning. Absent factually supported legal
conclusions, we are compelled to vacate and remand the portion of the May 5,
2023 trial court order on appeal to the trial court to set forth a statement of
reasons for its determination, comporting with Rule 1:7-4. See Kas Oriental
Rugs, Inc. v. Ellman, 407 N.J. Super. 538, 561 (App. Div. 2009).
Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-3074-22
4