Gere v. Louis
209 N.J. 486
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Gere and her former husband divorced; they resolved economic issues via a 2000 property settlement including fixed seven-year alimony and detailed ancillary real estate provisions.
- Ancillary Real Estate Investments included Navesink Partners, LLC, which owned marina real estate, facilities, and business operations, with a six-month window to decide treatment of these assets.
- Louis, Gere's divorce attorney, testified Gere understood she would retain a one-half interest in assets unless she affirmatively waived it within six months.
- In October 2000 Louis prepared a letter stating Gere would maintain a one-half interest in all properties except the marina's real estate; Hope testified that the six-month window had expired and that Gere intended to keep the real estate but be bought out of the business operations.
- Post-judgment litigation centered on whether Gere had waived her interest in Navesink Partners; discovery was limited and later expanded inconsistently, delaying a plenary hearing until 2006.
- A July 2007 settlement reduced Gere’s interests (real estate 1/2, business 40%); Gere testified the settlement was fair but not necessarily equitable, and she preserved claims against third parties, including her former attorneys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Puder bars Gere’s malpractice claim against DeBartolo | Gere contends her claim is factually distinct and not barred by Puder. | DeBartolo relies on Puder to preclude malpractice claims arising from underlying settlement actions. | Puder does not bar DeBartolo's malpractice claim here. |
| Whether Gere waived malpractice claims by settling post-judgment disputes | Settlement was fair/necessary to resolve litigation; allowed continuation against third parties. | Settlement signals acceptance of the resolution and waives related malpractice claims. | Not barred; settlement does not preclude malpractice action against the attorneys. |
| Whether equity-based exception to Puder applies | Puder-equity exception should apply because discovery deficiencies harmed her case and she settled under pressure. | The exception does not apply; plaintiff faced no improper coercion and pursued a negotiated resolution. | Equity-based exception does not apply. |
| What governing standard applies on summary judgment review | Record should be viewed in plaintiff-friendly light for discovery and causation issues. | Summary judgment standard should reflect the record with proper deference to prior determinations. | De novo review applied; courts must view record in light favorable to plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428 (N.J. 2005) (equity-based exception to preclusion of malpractice claims when settlement resolves issues and preserves actions against others)
- Guido v. Duane Morris, LLP, 202 N.J. 79 (N.J. 2010) (carves out limited equity-based exceptions to Ziegelheim in settlement contexts)
- Ziegelheim v. Apollo, 128 N.J. 250 (N.J. 1992) (former client may sue for malpractice if settlement does not resolve underlying dispute)
- Hernandez v. Baugh, 401 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 2008) (recognizes an equity-based consideration in malpractice settlements and discovery deficiencies)
- Brundage v. Estate of Carambio, 195 N.J. 575 (N.J. 2008) (public policy favoring settlement of disputes in litigation)