HANGZHOU HIKVISION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. VS. AEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. (L-4634-16, ESSEX 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2866-18T2
HANGZHOU HIKVISION
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO.,
LTD.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
AEON GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY,
INC., a/k/a KT&C AMERICA INC.,
a/k/a KT&C CO., LTD.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________
Submitted March 4, 2020 – Decided March 16, 2020
Before Judges Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-4634-16.
Mark S. Carter, attorney for appellant.
William James Jeffery, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Aeon Global Technology, Inc., a/k/a KT&C America, a/k/a
KT&C Co., Ltd. appeals from a January 25, 2019 order for judgment awarding
the sum of $100,026 to plaintiff Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co.,
Ltd. Because the motion judge failed to set forth findings of fact and
conclusions of law, we reverse.
Plaintiff sold goods to defendant. After defendant failed to pay for the
goods, plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging breach of contract and unjust
enrichment. Defendant responded by filing an answer and counterclaim,
alleging breach of contract for defective or non-conforming goods sold to it by
plaintiff. The parties settled the litigation and executed a stipulation of
settlement memorializing their agreement.
After making periodic payments in accordance with the parties' stipulation
of settlement, defendant belatedly asserted the agreement failed to account for a
prior payment it made to plaintiff in the amount of $100,000. As a result,
defendant unilaterally ceased making payments pursuant to the stipulation of
settlement.
Plaintiff then filed a motion to enforce the settlement and requested the
entry of judgment against defendant for the outstanding amount due under the
settlement. Defendant opposed the motion.
A-2866-18T2
2
On January 25, 2019, the judge entered an order for judgment, awarding
plaintiff the sum of $100,026, plus taxed costs. The order lacked any indication
the judge rendered a written or oral opinion stating his findings of fact or
conclusions of law.
On appeal, defendant contends the judge failed to consider a previous
payment it made to plaintiff. Defendant also argues the judge failed to set forth
factual findings and legal conclusions, warranting a remand.
Rule 1:7-4(a) states that "[t]he court 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 . . . . " "Naked conclusions do not satisfy the
purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980).
"Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons
for his or her opinion." Giarusso v. Giarusso, 455 N.J. Super. 42, 53 (App. Div.
2018) (quoting Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. Super. 298, 310 (App. Div. 2008)).
Defendant suggests we exercise original jurisdiction and reverse the
judgment rather than remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law. While
Rule 2:10-5 allows an appellate court to exercise original jurisdiction "as is
necessary to the complete determination of any matter on review," we should do
A-2866-18T2
3
so "with great frugality." Tomaino v. Burman, 364 N.J. Super. 224, 234-35
(App. Div. 2003) (quoting In re Boardwalk Regency Corp. Casino License
Application, 180 N.J. Super. 324, 334 (App. Div. 1981)). The exercise of
original jurisdiction is disfavored when fact-finding is necessary. Price v.
Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 294-95 (2013). Because fact-finding is required to
resolve plaintiff's motion, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction.
Here, the motion judge did not issue any oral or written findings of fact
or conclusions of law regarding plaintiff's motion to enforce the judgment. The
judge simply ordered defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of $100,026, plus taxed
costs. We cannot determine from the record whether the judge analyzed
defendant's proofs that it did not owe additional money to plaintiff under the
settlement agreement. Therefore, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial
court to make the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance
with Rule 1:7-4. The remand proceeding shall be conducted within forty-five
days of the date of this opinion.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
A-2866-18T2
4