Unpublished Opinions for the Week of November 28, 2016

01-2-1854 In the Matter of Soto, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (5 pp.) Plaintiff appealed from the order denying his application for a permit to carry a handgun. Plaintiff’s work as an armored car driver and guard required him to carry a firearm and he filed to renew his handgun permit. The application was reviewed by the state police and forwarded to the trial court for approval. When plaintiff arrived at court to pick up his new permit, the judge told him that his current permit had been altered to remove restrictions, that plaintiff was aware of the alteration and that altering a permit was a criminal offense. The judge revoked plaintiff’s current permit and denied the application for a new permit. Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by not providing him with notice and a hearing before revoking his current permit and denying his application for a new permit. The court found that a gun permit revocation required a judicial proceeding to which procedural due process applied. Plaintiff’s new permit was effectively revoked by an after-the-fact denial of his application because the permit had been granted and was then “denied” sua sponte by the court. The court ordered the matter remanded for an evidentiary hearing to develop a factual record.

07-2-1846 Leone v. Hajiyerou, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Defendants appealed the denial of their motion to quash an information subpoena and to order the entry of a warrant to satisfy judgment. Plaintiffs held two mortgages on properties that defendants had purchased from them. After defendants defaulted, the parties entered a restructured agreement, which defendants again defaulted on. The parties attempted settlement of plaintiffs’ subsequent suit, with defendants sending plaintiffs’ counsel a check for $50,000 along with executed deeds for the properties, in lieu of foreclosure, with a letter stating that if the settlement proposal was not accepted, plaintiffs were to return the check and deeds. Although the record was not clear as to whether the proposal was accepted, the check and deeds were not returned. Default judgment was later entered against defendants after they failed to appear for trial. Plaintiffs recorded the deeds in lieu of foreclosure and subsequently sold the properties, the proceeds from which exceeded the amount of judgment against defendants. After plaintiffs cashed defendants’ check, they filed for an information subpoena to recover the balance of the judgment, while defendants motioned for a warrant of satisfaction. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion but denied defendants’ motion. On appeal, defendants argued the trial court erred in not deeming judgment to have been satisfied by plaintiffs’ sale of the properties. The court decided to reverse and remand, as the trial court failed to accompany its orders with findings of fact and conclusions of law, such that there was no record as to whether the trial court considered defendants’ argument that judgment had been satisfied by the properties’ sale or why those arguments were unavailing. Accordingly, the court ordered the trial court to consider the arguments on remand and issue a statement of reasons to support its determination.