IN THE MATTER OF MARIA DELORES HELLER, ETC. (P-244-15, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-0336-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Maria Delores Heller (MDH), bedridden with late-stage ALS, was the subject of a guardianship proceeding seeking appointment of a guardian pendente lite (temporary guardian).
- A New York attorney (a former associate of MDH’s late husband) filed the guardianship petition and produced physician certifications asserting MDH lacked capacity and required emergency intervention (including possible feeding tube).
- The court appointed the temporary guardian on July 8, 2015, authorizing interim medical/financial actions and allowing reasonable fees and bond premium to be paid from MDH’s estate.
- After an emergent medical exam and new physician certifications that MDH had capacity, the temporary guardian withdrew the petition and the court dismissed the guardianship; the temporary guardian served ~15 days (July 8–23, 2015).
- The temporary guardian sought $44,973.66 in compensation (and expenses); her attorneys sought $35,946.25 in fees. The court denied the guardian’s compensation, awarded attorneys $25,924.27 (ordering $23,000 reimbursed to the guardian), and required MDH to pay a $1,790 bond premium.
- MDH challenged the attorney fee award; the temporary guardian cross-appealed the denial of her personal compensation and the reduction of attorneys’ fees. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heller) | Defendant's Argument (Temp. Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by awarding fees to the temporary guardian’s attorneys after dismissal | Awarding fees was improper because guardianship was unsuccessful and dismissed quickly; fees excessive and guardian acted for personal gain | Court has discretion to award fees; counsel acted in good faith to address life‑threatening situation | Court did not abuse discretion in awarding reduced attorneys’ fees; award affirmed |
| Whether court erred by denying compensation to the temporary guardian | N/A (Heller opposed payment) | Guardian sought compensation for services performed pendente lite | Denial affirmed: guardian billed excessive/unrelated time, included periods before/after pendente lite service, and was not licensed in NJ; billing irregularities justified denial |
| Whether bond premium should be paid by MDH’s estate | Fee award and bond premium are improper when MDH found competent | Bond premium authorized by appointment order to be paid from estate | Court’s order requiring MDH to pay bond premium affirmed |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by reducing attorneys’ requested fees | Requested full amount was excessive given limited success | Attorneys needed to act promptly in life‑threatening circumstances; fees should reflect reasonable hours/rates | Court properly reduced fees after considering RPC 1.5 factors, plaintiff’s motivation, estate size, and limited success |
Key Cases Cited
- Szczepanski v. Newcomb Med. Center, 141 N.J. 346 (1995) (limited success may reduce a lodestar fee)
- Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (trial court fee determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Triffin v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc., 411 N.J. Super. 292 (App. Div. 2010) (trial‑court factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence are binding on appeal)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (standard for reviewing trial court findings)
- In re Landry, 381 N.J. Super. 401 (Ch. Div. 2005) (factors for court to consider in awarding fees in guardianship matters)