DINA A. MELUCCI v. RICHARD ZISS (FM-07-1368-05, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2479-20

Parties married 1991, divorced 2005; the judgment incorporated a PSA requiring Ziss to pay Melucci $1,475/month permanent alimony plus time‑limited additional equitable‑distribution payments ending in 2018.
On October 5, 2020, Melucci moved to enforce arrears: equitable‑distribution arrears, $9,950 in alimony arrears, and counsel fees.
Ziss opposed and cross‑moved for a temporary abatement/moratorium on collection and reduction of alimony, certifying his piano‑tech business declined ~80% due to COVID‑19 and he could only pay $475/month since March 2020; he submitted supporting exhibits.
Melucci disputed Ziss’s financial showing, saying he failed to provide a full accounting and no proof warranted abatement.
On April 12, 2021 the trial court granted enforcement, ordered a $11,200 lump‑sum payment, and summarily denied Ziss’s cross‑motion but issued no factual findings or legal conclusions and did not indicate a decision was placed on the record.
Ziss requested the court’s findings; received no response and appealed, arguing he was entitled to consideration under Lepis and that the trial court failed to make the required findings under Rule 1:7‑4(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ziss was entitled to a temporary abatement/moratorium or reduction of alimony/arrearage collection based on COVID‑related changed circumstances	Melucci: Ziss provided inadequate financial proof; no basis to abate or reduce payments	Ziss: COVID caused severe business downturn; seeks moratorium/temporary abatement (not permanent modification) until conditions normalize	Trial court denied cross‑motion, but appellate court vacated and remanded because the trial court gave no findings; remand for proper consideration and articulated decision
Whether the trial court complied with Rule 1:7‑4(a) by stating findings of fact and conclusions of law	Melucci: enforcement order supported by bank statements/checks showing arrears (implicitly sufficient)	Ziss: trial court failed to explain denial or apply legal standard (Lepis) or make factual findings	Appellate court held the trial court failed to comply with Rule 1:7‑4(a); order vacated and remanded for written or placed‑on‑the‑record findings and legal analysis

Lepis v. Lepis, 83 N.J. 139 (1980) (alimony modification standard for changed circumstances)
Schwarz v. Schwarz, 328 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 2000) (trial judges must articulate reasons in appealable written orders)
Gormley v. Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433 (App. Div. 2019) (findings must state factual bases and correlate to legal conclusions)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (failure to make findings is a judicial duty breach and disserves parties and appellate review)
Avelino‑Catabran v. Catabran, 445 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 2016) (articulated decisions must clearly state factual findings and legal reasoning)
D'Angelo v. D'Angelo, 208 N.J. Super. 729 (Ch. Div. 1986) (Chancery/Family Part authority to enforce its orders)