SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4272-15T2

CIT BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RONALD WEAKLY, and MRS.

RONALD WEAKLY, his wife,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________

Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided

Before Judges Simonelli and Rothstadt.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. 

F-030884-15.

Ronald Weakly, appellant pro se.

Parker Ibrahim & Berg, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (Scott W. Parker and Karena J. 

Straub, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 1, 2017
2 A-4272-15T2

Defendants, Ronald Weakly and his wife,

1 appeal from the 

Chancery Division's denial of their motion to vacate default, and 

its entry of final judgment in foreclosure in favor of plaintiff, 

CIT Bank, N.A. The Chancery judge denied defendants' motion 

without oral argument and, according to the order, he did so "for 

the reasons set forth in [p]laintiff's opposition to [d]efendant's 

[m]otion." The court did not advance any findings of facts or 

conclusions of law, or any other explanation for its decision. On 

appeal, defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion 

when it failed to grant their motion.

We conclude from our review that we are unable to perform our 

appellate function because the Chancery judge failed to satisfy 

the requirements of Rule 1:7-4. We need not - and indeed cannot 

- determine whether the judge correctly denied defendants' motion 

because the judge erred by failing to make any findings of fact 

supporting his determination or otherwise sufficiently expressing 

his reasoning.

Pursuant to Rule 1:7-4, a trial judge has an obligation to 

render "an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, 

[with] find[ings of] fact[] and . . . conclusions of law thereon 

in all actions tried without a jury. . . ." "The purpose of the 

 

1 She is only identified as "Mrs. Ronald Weakly" and, evidently, 

did not sign any of the subject loan documents.
3 A-4272-15T2

rule is to make sure that the court makes its own determination 

of the matter." In re Tr. Agreement Dec. 20, 1961, by and between 

Johnson & Hoffman, Lienhard & Perry, 399 N.J. Super. 237, 254

(2006), aff'd, 194 N.J. 276 (2008). "When a trial court issues 

reasons for its decision, it 'must state clearly [its] factual 

findings and correlate them with 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 (App. Div. 2016)(alteration 

in original)(quoting Monte v. Monte, 212 N.J. Super. 557, 565 

(App. Div. 1986)). When that is not done, a reviewing court does 

not know whether the judge's decision is based on the facts and 

law or is the product of arbitrary action resting on an 

impermissible basis. See Monte, supra, 212 N.J. Super. at 565.

The manner in which a judge complies with the Rule is left 

to the judge's discretion. In re Tr. Agreement Dec. 20, 1961,

supra, 399 N.J. Super. at 253. A judge is not required to specify

grounds for the denial of a motion and, instead, can rely upon 

reasons expressed by a party. Id. at 253-54. However, the judge 

must make "such reliance 'explicit,'" Allstate Insurance Co. v. 

Fisher, 408 N.J. Super. 289, 301 (App. Div. 2009); Pressler & 

Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 1 on R. 1:7-4 (2018), 

and make "clear the extent of [the judge's] agreement with and 
4 A-4272-15T2

reliance on [the] proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

law," demonstrating that the judge "carefully considered the 

evidentiary record and did not abdicate [the judge's] decisionmaking responsibility." In re Tr. Agreement Dec. 20, 1961, supra,

399 N.J. Super. at 254. 

A judge "does not discharge [his] function simply by 

recounting the parties' conflicting assertions and then stating a 

legal conclusion, or, as here, incorporating by reference one of 

the parties' arguments." Avelino-Catabran, supra, 445 N.J. Super.

at 595. "[A]n articulation of reasons is essential to the fair 

resolution of a case." O'Brien v. O'Brien, 259 N.J. Super. 402, 

407 (App. Div. 1992).

There is nothing in the order denying defendants' motion in 

this matter that confirms that the judge made an independent 

decision based upon an analysis of the facts and applicable law. 

"While the failure to provide reasons necessitates a remand, we 

are left with the option of remanding for a statement of reasons 

or reversing and remanding for consideration of the motion . . . 

anew. We determine that the latter course of action is appropriate 

here." Fisher, supra, 408 N.J. Super. at 303.

The judgment and order under review are vacated. The matter 

is remanded and the trial judge is directed to reconsider 

defendants' motion and enter a new order within fourteen days, 
5 A-4272-15T2

together with a written or oral statement of reasons in conformity 

with Rule 1:7-4. We do not retain jurisdiction.