This has been a busy past ten days for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that busy period coincided with one of my own busy periods. So here is a very brief recap of some of the actions that the Court took since April 26:
In Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 224 N.J. 584 (2016), a closely-watched case, the Court voted 3-2 that in prosecuting a fiduciary malpractice action against an attorney who intentionally violated an escrow agreement, the prevailing beneficiary could be awarded attorneys’ fees. Justice Solomon wrote the majority opinion, to which Chief Justice Rabner and Justice Albin also subscribed. Justice LaVecchia dissented, joined by Judge Cuff. Justices Patterson and Fernandez-Vina did not participate. The competing opinions contained detailed discussion of the American Rule, under which each party normally bears its own counsel fees, regardless of success or failure, caselaw in which New Jersey has deviated from that rule, most particularly Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996), and whether the American Rule is in jeopardy going forward.
In Bardis v. Stinson, 224 N.J. 448 (2016), the Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Division, which was just discussed here, and adopted the dissenting opinion of Judge Sapp-Peterson. The Court’s opinion was per curiam and the vote was 6-0.
In Delvecchio v. Bridgewater Tp., 224 N.J. 559 (2016), a unanimous opinion by Justice Patterson, the Court held that a plaintiff under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”), can rely on the testimony of a treating physician who had not been designated as an expert to establish the existence of a disability for purposes of a claim under the LAD. The trial court had ruled that plaintiff here could not do that, and the Appellate Division reversed and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the Appellate Division and remanded for a new trial.
Finally, in Quinn v. Quinn, 225 N.J. 34 (2016), the Court split 4-2 in a matrimonial matter. Judge Cuff, writing for the majority (which also included the Chief Justice and Justices Patterson and Solomon), concluded that the parties’ property settlement agreement, which provided that cohabitation would result in the termination of alimony, was enforceable just as any other contract is. Justice Albin, joined by Justice LaVecchia, dissented, and expressed the view that such an agreement is against public policy. The two precedents on which this dispute centered were Konzelman v. Konzelman, 158 N.J. 185 (1999), and Gayet v. Gayet, 92 N.J. 149 (1983).