IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ANNA FABICS(247609, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5576-14T2

Anna Fabics died testate; her will directed executor Laszlo to sell any property and distribute proceeds equally to her two sons, Joseph and Laszlo.
Joseph alleged Laszlo removed or disposed of estate personal property, sought injunctions, an accounting, removal of Laszlo as executor, and to purchase Anna’s home.
Court temporarily enjoined disposition of estate property, allowed Joseph to inventory personalty; Joseph listed desired items but never made a valid purchase offer.
After a bench trial, Judge Wolfson dismissed Joseph’s complaints with prejudice, denied a premature accounting, and found Laszlo acted in good faith within his authority, including selling the home to a third party for cash.
Joseph repeatedly filed additional lis pendens and discovery petitions after dismissal; the court imposed counsel-fee sanctions and barred Joseph from filing further actions without leave. Joseph died; Ellen Heine (as Joseph’s executrix) substituted on appeal. The home was later sold, rendering that claim moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether executor must make in-kind distributions vs. cash	Heine/Joseph argued he should receive personal property in kind rather than cash	Laszlo relied on will language directing sale and cash distribution; Joseph made no valid offer	Court: Will required sale and cash distribution; in-kind distribution unavailable because conditions of N.J.S.A. 3B:23-1(b) were unmet
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying short-notice discovery motion	Joseph argued he needed a list of unpaid estate bills for trial	Laszlo argued motion was untimely and irrelevant to removal or fiduciary claims	Court: Motion untimely under Rule 1:6-3(a) and sought irrelevant evidence; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether evidence supported claims of executor misconduct, waste, removal	Joseph alleged Laszlo stole/removed assets and acted in bad faith to favor third-party sale	Laszlo showed he offered Joseph purchase options, accepted a cash, contingency-free third-party offer, and acted within executor authority	Court: No proof of misconduct or abuse; judge credited Laszlo’s good-faith exercise of discretion
Whether sanctions (counsel fees, filing restrictions) were appropriate for post-judgment filings	Heine challenged fees and filing bars as erroneous	Laszlo argued repeated vexatious filings forced responses and fees	Court: Sanctions were appropriate given Joseph’s disregard of final orders and repeated baseless filings

In re Estate of Hope, 390 N.J. Super. 533 (App. Div.) (equitable remedies and deference to trial court discretion)
Pomerantz Paper Corp. v. New Comty. Corp., 207 N.J. 344 (2011) (appellate deference to discovery rulings absent abuse of discretion)
Hisenaj v. Kuehner, 194 N.J. 6 (2008) (standard for abuse of discretion: manifest error or injustice)
Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (abuse-of-discretion principles)
Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (authority to award counsel fees for improper or vexatious litigation)