ANN CORIGLIANO VS. HENRY CORIGLIANO, JR. (C-000049-19, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3046-19

Parties entered a mediated settlement resolving a property dispute; the agreement required Cory to close on acquisition of five lots and business interests or, after a time-of-the-essence notice, to sell his interests by July 1, 2019.
Plaintiffs filed a verified complaint (and sought an order to show cause) on May 28, 2019, alleging Cory breached and repudiated the settlement; the trial court scheduled a summary hearing without issuing the order to show cause.
On July 1, Cory informed the court he was ready to close that afternoon in compliance with the time-of-the-essence deadline; the court nevertheless continued the hearing, heard argument, and rendered an oral decision; closing occurred that day.
The trial court found Cory not credible, found multiple breaches and bad-faith litigation tactics, and concluded plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees as a sanction under Rule 1:4-8 (and the court’s inherent power).
The court entered fee awards totaling roughly $129,800 against Cory; Cory appealed, arguing the judge failed to follow required procedures and misapplied Rule 1:4-8.
The Appellate Division reversed and vacated the fee award because the judge imposed sanctions on a represented party without following Rule 1:4-8(c)’s required order-to-show-cause procedures and misapplied the rule governing sanctions against parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 1:4-8 authorized awarding attorneys’ fees against a represented party for frivolous litigation	Rule 1:4-8 permits fees as a sanction for Cory’s frivolous defense and bad faith	Rule 1:4-8 applies to attorneys and pro se parties; sanctions against represented parties are governed by the Frivolous Litigation Statute and Rule 1:4-8(f) procedures	Reversed: Rule 1:4-8 does not directly authorize sanctioning a represented party; statutory scheme and Rule 1:4-8(f) govern fees against parties
Whether the court complied with required procedural safeguards before imposing sua sponte sanctions	The court’s oral statement and subsequent briefing schedule sufficed to raise and decide fee entitlement	No order to show cause was issued; plaintiffs did not file a separate sanctions motion or provide required notice; due-process procedures in R.1:4-8(c) were not followed	Reversed: court abused discretion by awarding fees without issuing the mandatory order to show cause (and without required notice/motion procedures); fee award vacated

Toll Brothers, Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 190 N.J. 61 (2007) (explains Rule 1:4-8 procedures govern frivolous-litigation fee awards and procedural safeguards are required)
McKeown-Brand v. Trump Castle Hotel & Casino, 132 N.J. 546 (1993) (party subject to frivolous-litigation sanction is entitled to due process: notice and opportunity to respond)
United Hearts, L.L.C. v. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. 379 (App. Div. 2009) (review standard: abuse of discretion for awards under Rule 1:4-8)
Brunt v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 455 N.J. Super. 357 (App. Div. 2018) (legal issues in fee applications are reviewed de novo)
Bove v. AkPharma Inc., 460 N.J. Super. 123 (App. Div. 2019) (Rule 1:4-8 and the Frivolous Litigation Statute are interpreted restrictively and applied only in exceptional cases)