The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has reversed a pair of trial court rulings that granted summary judgment to the plaintiff in a collection lawsuit and dismissed the defendant’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act counterclaims, sending the case back because the written order did not match what actually happened in the courtroom.
The background: The plaintiff, a debt buyer, sued the defendant in New Jersey’s Special Civil Part seeking $662.60 on a credit card account.
- The defendant answered and filed counterclaims accusing the plaintiff of false or deceptive representations under the FDCPA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and separately sought to add the plaintiff’s attorneys as parties to the case.
- The plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaims and then for summary judgment, and days before the scheduled trial asked the court to convert the trial date into a settlement conference and motion hearing; the record does not show that the court ever responded.
- On the day of trial, the defendant did not appear. The judge asked the plaintiff’s counsel, “Do you want summary judgment, or [do] you want default?” Counsel replied, “I’ll take a default.” The judge entered a default, marked the summary judgment motion as withdrawn, and dismissed the counterclaims with prejudice.
- Weeks later, however, the court issued a written order stating that summary judgment had been granted, with the reasons “set forth . . . on the record,” even though no findings were made that day.
- The defendant moved to vacate the order, certifying that he missed trial because he was ill; he produced a court-stamped copy of the motion, but the court’s electronic docket had no record of it, and the motion was never decided.
The ruling: The Appeals Court reversed and remanded, confronting the dilemma of a written order that contradicted the courtroom ruling and a self-represented defendant whose motion to vacate seemingly vanished from the docket.
- The court called the order “perplexing,” noting there was no explanation for why it granted a summary judgment motion the judge had said would be withdrawn in favor of a default.
- The order also failed to include the findings of fact and conclusions of law that New Jersey’s court rules require. “Ironically,” the panel observed, the only reasoning that arguably complied with the rule was that the defendant did not appear for trial that day.
- The parties admitted at oral argument that no order of judgment specifying an amount owed was ever entered against the defendant.
- Given that the defendant had vigorously litigated the case, filing an answer, counterclaims, and multiple motions, the court found it “very likely” that he did file the motion to vacate and directed the trial court to consider it on remand.
- The Appeals Court took no position on the merits of either side’s claims and ordered the remand completed within 45 days.
