07-2-3381 Riddick v. Twp. of Jackson, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Appellant filed suit against respondent-Township, in addition to individual defendants, for damages resulting from the personal injuries he sustained during an automobile accident. Respondent moved for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to immunity under the relevant portions of the Tort Claims Act, N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to -12.3. At the close of oral argument, the judge indicated that he wanted to more closely study a particular case cited by appellant's counsel and rendered no decision on the record. Through some oversight, no decision was rendered on the record at any time thereafter, and no written statement of reasons was issued prior to the judge granting summary judgment. On appeal, the court vacated the decision and remanded for reconsideration of the submissions and for the judge to memorialize his reasons for such decision pursuant to Rule 1:7-4(a). The court noted without such findings of fact and rulings of law, no meaningful appellate review could be conducted. Further, the court found it was particularly consequential when a motion for summary judgment was granted and a dismissal ensued. At that point, the order was finally appealable of right. Accordingly, the court vacated summary judgment and remanded for reconsideration of the motion and compliance with the rule.

11-4-3368 Barila v. Bd. of Educ. of Cliffside Park, Bergen Cnty., N.J. Super. Ch. Div. (Contillo, P.J.Ch.) (39 pp.) This action concerned a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by defendant and the collective bargaining representative for all teaching staff members employed by defendant school district. Plaintiffs were teachers employed by defendant and were in the bargaining unit. Upon modification of the sick leave provision, plaintiffs objected to the ratified CNA. Following defendant's adoption of the agreement, plaintiffs commenced the underlying litigation asserting they were deprived of their vested contractual rights and violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act by impairing the earned, vested, and constitutionally protected contractual rights of plaintiffs. The parties subsequently filed competing summary judgment motions. The court initially determined it held subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action as the heart of the complaint was whether defendant could negotiate away contractual rights. The court than granted in part summary judgment for plaintiff finding that a teacher's right to accumulated sick leave vested and survived the expiration of a CNA; defendant may alter such provisions going forward but not retroactively. However, the court further granted summary judgment in part to defendant finding that its authority to ratify a CNA to which it was a party did not constitute a law that could violate the contracts clause. As such, defendant did not violate the New Jersey Constitution's Contract Clause by ratifying or otherwise approving a collective negotiation agreement.

15-2-3390 Motorworld, Inc. v. Benkendorf, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) In a matter relating to the release of debt among several corporations owned by the same sole stockholder, the court reassessed its prior opinion that had been rejected by a higher court. Defendants argued that stockholder's bankruptcy trustee was estopped from enforcing the promissory note because defendants had relied on the note's cancellation for more than three years and had lost the ability to collect the monies owed by two corporations owned by stockholder resulting in a “windfall” to stockholder or her creditors. Promissory estoppel was denied because the trial judge found no reliance on the mutual exchange of waiver claims. Defendants also argued the fraudulent conveyance action was time-barred because it was not filed within two years of the commencement of stockholder's bankruptcy action. Trustee successfully argued that the timeliness of the action was governed by 11 U.S.C.A. §108(a) which looked to the four-year time bar in N.J.S.A. 25:2-31(b) and the action was timely. The court remanded the damage award to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the trial judge's findings that the parties intended to release the debt.