IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF FELIX FORNARO (P-000172-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-2346-19

Background

Decedent executed a December 16, 2011 will leaving 80% to son Carmine, 10% to daughter Linda, and 10% to grandchildren, replacing earlier wills that had favored Linda.
Linda filed suit in May 2013 contesting the will for undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity; lengthy discovery and a multi-day bench trial followed, with competing medical experts.
The trial court found the 2011 will valid and rejected undue influence but noted "suspicious circumstances." It initially awarded substantial counsel fees to Linda, to Riker (defense counsel), and to Weiner (estate counsel).
On appeal the fee awards were vacated for lack of express findings under Rule 1:7-4(a); the matter was remanded for the trial court to apply Bloomer, Rendine, and RPC 1.5(a) factors and make factual findings.
On remand the trial court reexamined the Bloomer/Rendine/RPC 1.5(a) factors and again awarded fees ($429,662.70 to Linda's counsel; $519,127.35 to Riker; $148,711 to Weiner). Carmine appealed; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of trial court findings supporting fee awards	Linda: remand cured prior deficiency; findings and analysis now satisfy governing standards	Carmine: trial court still failed to make adequate factual findings and conclusions of law as required by Rule 1:7-4(a)/Rendine	Affirmed — on remand court applied Bloomer and RPC 1.5(a), articulated factual findings and conclusions; no abuse of discretion
Whether fees were awarded outside scope of Rule 4:42-9(a)(3)	Linda: Rule permits allowances to contestant/proponent when contestant had reasonable cause	Carmine: trial court exceeded Rule 4:42-9(a)(3)'s scope in awarding fees	Rejected — Linda had reasonable cause; award to contestant appropriate; fees to defense counsel justified by services rendered
Whether Linda should receive full requested fees despite losing will contest	Linda: challenge was not weak or meretricious; reasonable cause supports award even if unsuccessful	Carmine: because Linda failed to set aside the will, she should not get all requested fees	Rejected — courts may award fees to a losing contestant who had reasonable cause; Linda’s contest was not meretricious
Whether awards to Riker and Weiner require remand for discovery/plenary hearing (alleged conflicts/breach of duty)	Implicit: fees to Riker/Weiner were proper given their successful defense of the estate	Carmine: alleged breach of contract and RPC violations by counsel; first raised on appeal and sought further discovery/hearing	Rejected — issues not raised below were forfeited; appellate court declined to consider them for first time on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292 (N.J. 1995) (standards for attorney fee findings on remand)
In re Bloomer's Estate, 37 N.J. Super. 85 (App. Div. 1955) (nine-factor test for probate fee allowances)
In re Probate of Will & Codicil of Macool, 416 N.J. Super. 298 (App. Div. 2010) (contestant fees appropriate except in weak or meretricious cases)
In re Reisdorf, 80 N.J. 319 (N.J. 1979) (discussing allowance of fees to contestants with reasonable cause)
In re Probate of Alleged Will of Landsman, 319 N.J. Super. 252 (App. Div. 1999) (standard of review for probate fee allowances)