Brunt v. Bd. of Trs.
190 A.3d 469
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2018Background
- William F. Brunt, Jr. retired from Middletown Police Department as interim deputy chief; his pension computation omitted interim deputy chief salary.
- An ALJ agreed with Brunt; the Board of Trustees adopted the ALJ decision. Middletown had not participated in the administrative hearing.
- After the Board adopted the ALJ decision, the Board’s Bureau Chief told Brunt’s counsel that an updated employer certification was required before the Division could recalculate benefits.
- Brunt filed a Law Division action to enforce the agency decision; the trial court ordered defendants to include Brunt’s final paycheck in the pension recalculation.
- The trial court later awarded Brunt $4,492 in counsel fees, finding defendants were uncooperative and invoking equitable considerations; defendants appealed.
- The Appellate Division reversed the fee award, holding New Jersey adheres to the American Rule and no statute, rule, or contract authorized fee shifting in this pension enforcement matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff could recover counsel fees after prevailing to enforce an agency pension decision | Brunt argued fees should be awarded because defendants delayed and were uncooperative, making fee-shifting equitable | Defendants argued no statutory, rule, or contractual basis exists to award fees and the American Rule bars shifting | Court held fee award improper: no statutory or Rule 4:42-9 authorization and equitable grounds insufficient to overcome the American Rule |
| Whether equitable principles (including Folcher dissent) permit fee-shifting absent statute | Brunt: equity and fairness support shifting fees to avoid burdening a longtime public servant | Defendants: equitable theories cannot override the statutory American Rule framework | Court rejected equitable basis; distinguished Folcher and found no fraud or fiduciary breach to justify fees |
| Whether liberal construction of pension statutes supports fee awards | Brunt: Masse’s liberal statutory construction of pension provisions supports relief for public employees | Defendants: Masse did not address fee-shifting and cannot be used to create a fee remedy | Court held Masse inapplicable to fee-shifting; construction of pension statutes does not imply legislative authorization to award fees |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying reconsideration of fee order | Brunt: judge exercised discretion considering justice and equities | Defendants: award rested on a legal error applying the law | Court found legal error (misconception of law) and reversed the fee award (de novo review of legal question) |
Key Cases Cited
- Masse v. Public Employees Retirement System, 87 N.J. 252 (1981) (discussing liberal construction of pension statutes in favor of public employees)
- Innes v. Marzano-Lesnevich, 224 N.J. 584 (2016) (reaffirming the American Rule and limits on fee-shifting absent authorization)
- N. Bergen Rex Transp., Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 158 N.J. 561 (1999) (explaining New Jersey’s general disfavor of fee-shifting without express authority)
- In the Matter of the Estate of Folcher, 224 N.J. 496 (2016) (majority and dissent on awarding fees for egregious misconduct in estate matters)
- Packard-Bamberger & Co., Inc. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (fee recovery only where statute, rule, or contract expressly allows)
- In re Niles Trust, 176 N.J. 282 (2003) (limited exception for fee awards in cases of undue influence by fiduciaries)