MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C. VS. STEVE HOSANG(L-824-13, BURLINGTON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3853-15T3
MIDLAND FUNDING, L.L.C.
CURRENT ASSIGNEE (CHASE
BANK, USA, N.A., ORIGINAL
CREDITOR),
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
STEVE HOSANG,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
Submitted June 26, 2017 – Decided July 13, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Fasciale.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Burlington County, Docket No.
L-824-13.
Steve HoSang, appellant pro se.
Pressler and Pressler, L.L.P., attorneys for
respondent (Lawrence J. McDermott, Jr., on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals from an April 1, 2016 order granting
plaintiff's motion to vacate an administrative dismissal of the
complaint and entering default judgment. We reverse and remand
for further proceedings.
In March 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages
related to defendant's alleged credit card debt. In June 2013,
defendant attempted to answer the complaint, but the clerk's office
returned the answer as non-conforming. The court entered default
in August 2013. In February 2014, the court dismissed the
complaint for lack of prosecution. The matter remained dormant
for approximately two years.
In March 2016, plaintiff filed its motion to vacate the
dismissal order and enter default judgment. Defendant opposed the
motion essentially arguing that the statute of limitations barred
plaintiff's complaint, and that plaintiff failed to show it was
an assignee of the original lender. The judge entered the order
under review, which awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of
$22,961.72 plus costs, without rendering a statement of reasons,
providing conclusions of law, or indicating whether he considered
defendant's opposition.
On appeal, defendant maintains that plaintiff's complaint is
time barred. Defendant also contends that the court lacked
jurisdiction, and that there is insufficient evidence to support
the judgment. Defendant urges us to reverse the order and enter
any remedy that is just.
2 A-3853-15T3
As required by Rule 1:7-4, trial judges must "by an opinion
or memorandum decision, either written or oral, 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 also
In re Farnkopf, 363 N.J. Super. 382, 390 (App. Div. 2003)
(requiring an adequate explanation of the basis for a court's
action). The absence of findings or conclusions has hampered our
review. On remand, the court is free to re-open the matter to
more fully develop the record and adjudicate plaintiff's motion
to vacate the administrative dismissal and request for default
judgment.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
3 A-3853-15T3