Recent Cases:
Attorneys’ Fees – Sanctions for Bringing Frivolous Litigation
Estate of Claudia L. Cohen, et al. v. Cohen, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. ____ (Docket No.: BER-C-134-08) (Chan. Div. 2010). Before Judge Koblitz.
This opinion by the trial court involves the question of sanctions against the estate for engaging in frivolous litigation by filing and prosecuting an amended complaint with the frivolous allegation that defendant-father made an enforceable promise after 1978 to leave Decedent-daughter as much as her brother under his will. As a deterrent to discourage the estate from repeating the objectionable litigation strategy, an amount of $1.9 million in reasonable counsel fees and costs was awarded against the estate
Although an allowance of fees for bringing frivolous litigation is rare, and only when there is a clear showing of bad faith, the Court felt it warranted in this case in light of the previous ruling by the Court denying the claim. The court also cited the fact that estate assets were used to litigate the frivolous claim to the detriment of the beneficiary and was extremely destructive to the relationships between the beneficiary and her family.
Will Contest
In re Estate of Richard Newberry, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 642 (Docket No. A-1332-08T1) (App. Div. 2010). On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Middlesex County. Before Judges Rodriguez and Reisner.
Plaintiff sought review of the Court’s award of legal fees from the Estate, despite having been given the right to object to the fees in a prior action.
The Court found that the failure of the plaintiff beneficiary to object to the request for fees and costs of suit, and the consent to entry of an order awarding such fees, barred the plaintiff beneficiary from seeking further review of the matter.
Initially, Decedent’s accountant sought probate of an unsigned copy of a Will prepared on Decedent’s behalf. The Court originally probated the Will, despite the fact that it was unsigned. Cousins of the Decedent filed a complaint objecting to the probate and after reconsidering its determination, the Court changed its prior ruling and refused admission of the Will to probate. An application was made by the Decedent’s accountant and her attorney for fees, and the Court awarded same with the Consent of all interested parties. An accounting was subsequently approved by counsel for the plaintiff beneficiary detailing these fees. Plaintiff beneficiary failed to object, failed to file an appeal or a motion for reconsideration. Several months later, plaintiff beneficiary filed a complaint seeking relief against Decedent’s accountant for wrongdoing and to disallow her fees. The Court dismissed the action as time barred as the claims were not raised in the initial probate action. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Sanctions for Frivolous Litigation
In the Matter of the Estate of Andrell Cyrano “Billy” Adams, deceased, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. _____ (Docket No. A-5764-08T2) (App. Div. 2010). On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. Before Judges Skillman, Gilroy and Simonelli.
This appeal involves the propriety of the trial court’s order directing the law firm for the Decedent’s ex-wife to pay Rule. 1:4-8 counsel fee sanctions for filing a frivolous motion.
The underlying matter arises out of questions over the appointment of a friend of the family as administratrix of Decedent’s estate. Decedent died intestate survived by his ex-wife and 4 children, two of which were from different relationships. On application of some of Decedent’s children, the friend of the family was appointed as administratrix. The law firm later filed suit seeking to have Decedent’s ex-wife appointed as administratrix claiming negligence by her prior attorneys. The court concluded that there was a conflict in appointing Decedent’s ex-wife, who still owed the estate money under the judgment of divorce, and that the existing administratrix was properly fulfilling her duties, and denied the motion. The court denied the application for sanctions against the law firm, stating that if Decedent’s ex-wife failed to cooperate with the estate, it would be viewed in a different light. The law firm then filed a motion for reconsideration on behalf of the daughter of Decedent’s ex-wife, and sanctions under Rule 1:4-8 were imposed.
On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the law firm filed the reconsideration motion in good faith, as the law firm believed the court failed to address the issue of whether there were grounds to vacate the original appointment under Rule 4:50-1(f) before considering a replacement. The law firm reasonably inferred that the denial of their motion was based on the conflict of interest between the Decedent’s ex-wife and the estate. The required safe harbor notice requesting the law firm to withdraw the motion was also never sent.
Legal Fees – Administration
In re Probate of the Holographic Will of Robert Murray, deceased, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1157 (Docket No. A-3775-07T1) (2009). Before Judges Carchman, R.B. Coleman and Simonelli.
Issue: Was the Court’s grant of attorneys’ fees to the temporary administrator’s law firm an abuse of discretion?
Holding: No. The legal fee award to the temporary administrator was affirmed as the lower Court did not abuse its discretion.
This case involved a Will contest over a holographic Will. The Court appointed a New Jersey attorney as temporary administrator, and ordered the sale of Decedent’s sole asset, a condominium, to pay down Decedent’s debts. Numerous objections to the sale of the condominium and exceptions to the accounting were filed by the beneficiaries. The issue under appeal dealt solely with the award of legal fees to the temporary administrator by the Court.
The Court found that the estate required the temporary administrator’s legal expertise due to the nature and complexity of the problems the estate faced, including the constant objections from the beneficiaries. The time spent and hourly rate were reasonable under the circumstances and the Court award was therefore affirmed on appeal.
Legal Fees – Will Contest
In re Estate of Richard Riley, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2692 (Docket No.: A-1957-08T3) (App. Div. 2009). Before Judges Cuff and Waugh.
Issue: Was the award of legal fees to the unsuccessful proponents in a Will contest proper under the circumstances?
Holding: Yes, the award of fees was affirmed. Fee determinations by trial Courts will be disturbed only on the rarest of occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion. In this matter, the probate Court awarded fees to the unsuccessful proponents of a codicil of Decedent, and an appeal was filed. After a review of the record, the Court concluded there was no abuse of discretion in awarding fees. The matter was remanded to determine who funded the litigation, the proponents or a third party, and to determine whether the attorney for the proponents had received the total amount of the Court’s award of legal fees.