Full Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-3821-24 FINANCE OF AMERICA REVERSE LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENNETH BROWN, Administrator of the Estate of NAOMI BROWN and known heir-at-law of NAOMI BROWN, Defendant-Appellant, and MR. BROWN, husband of NAOMI BROWN, DAVID BROWN, known heir-at-law of NAOMI BROWN, BAYBERRY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., COUNTY OF HUDSON, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,1 Defendants. _______________________________ 1 The other defendants are not participating in this appeal. Submitted October 6, 2026 – Decided October 20, 2026 Before Judges Gooden Brown and Firko. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County, Docket No. F-000866-15. Kenneth Brown, self-represented appellant. Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, attorneys for respondent (John D. Krohn, on the brief). PER CURIAM In this residential foreclosure action, defendant Kenneth Brown appeals from a July 23, 2025 order denying his motion for a stay of the sheriff 's sale. Based on our review of defendant's arguments in light of the record on appeal, we conclude the issues raised are moot, and the appeal should be dismissed. I. We derive the following facts from the record. On January 8, 2015, plaintiff Finance of American Reverse, LLC's predecessor in interest, filed its foreclosure complaint. On November 14, 2022, a foreclosure judgment was entered in plaintiff's favor against defendant. On July 17, 2025, defendant filed a motion to stay sheriff's sale pending appeal of a separate matter filed by A-3821-24 2 defendant under a different docket number, A-2751-24,2 which has been dismissed. On July 23, 2025, the court denied defendant's motion and entered the order under review. On July 29, 2025, defendant filed the instant appeal. Thereafter, on August 4, 2024, defendant filed a motion to set aside the sheriff's sale pending under docket number A-2751-24. Defendant argued in his motion that the court's July 23, 2025 order lacked the requisite findings of fact and conclusions of law required under Rule 1:7-4(a), and requested such findings be provided. The relief sought in defendant's motion is the same relief he seeks before this court. On August 29, 2025, the court entered an order denying defendant's motion accompanied by a comprehensive, written statement of reasons. The court provided its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding its decision entered on July 23, 2025. The court determined that the sheriff's sale would not be vacated because defendant's stay application was based on an appeal from his separate case in a Law Division matter and not the subject foreclosure matter. The court reasoned that defendant failed to show any "fraud, accident, purpose, mistake, or irregularities" in the conduct of the sheriff's sale. 2 The Law Division docket number for appeal A-2751-24 is ESX-L-0009-25. A-3821-24 3 The court determined that defendant's motion to set aside the sheriff's sale was deficient because he did not serve the third-party purchaser with the motion. The court concluded defendant's motion to vacate the sheriff's sale must be denied due to "both procedural and substantive deficiencies." The court observed "no plain injustice or injury occurred" as a result of the sheriff's sale, and there were no grounds to vacate the sale. Defendant did not mention the August 29, 2025 order and statement of reasons in his appellate brief or include this order in his appendix. On appeal, defendant's sole argument is that the court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 1:7-4(a), in connection with its decision on defendant's prior motion memorialized in the July 23, 2025 order. II. We first address the issue of whether defendant's appeal is moot. "Mootness is a threshold justiciability determination rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately threatened with harm." Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 227, 231 (App. Div. 2000)). "Courts normally will not decide issues when a controversy no longer A-3821-24 4 exists, and the disputed issues have become moot." Ibid. (first citing DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring); then citing Edelstein v. City of Asbury Park, 12 N.J. Super. 509, 514-15 (App. Div. 1951)). "A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." Ibid. (quoting DeVesa, 134 N.J. at 428 (Pollock, J., concurring)). However, "an issue is [also] moot when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy." Greenfield v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 254, 257-58 (App. Div. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). According to Rule 1:7-4(a), a "court shall, by an opinion or memorandum decision, either written or oral, find the facts and state its conclusions of law thereon . . . on every motion decided by a written order that is appealable as of right." "[J]udges are under a duty to make findings of fact and to state reasons in support of their conclusions." Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 347 (App. Div. 1996) (citing Rule 1:7-4). "Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons for his or her opinion." Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443 (App. Div. 1990). "Naked conclusions do not satisfy the purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4." Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 570 (1980). A-3821-24 5 After filing the present appeal, the court properly issued findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 1:7-4(a), relative to its July 23, 2025 order, which were memorialized in its statement of reasons attached to its August 29, 2025 order. Therefore, as a result of the court's compliance with Rule 1:7-4(a), the issue raised in defendant's appeal is moot. Dismissed as moot. A-3821-24 6