LEMAD CORPORATION VS. IRENE HONACHEFSKYÂ IRENE HONACHEFSKY VS. CHARLES M. URBAN(C-000030-08, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3531-15T4

Background

Lemad bought Lot 6 (subject to a 10-foot recorded easement called Echo Lane) in 2004; adjacent owners (Honachefskys and Aguirres) used the easement for access. A survey showed Echo Lane extended beyond the deeded description.
After litigation and cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties placed a settlement on the record (Apr. 13, 2012): the easement would be re-described and expanded to 14 feet, include the disputed 4.59-foot gore, be nonexclusive, be recorded, and beneficiaries would have the nonexclusive responsibility to maintain/improve the roadway.
At the settlement hearing William Honachefsky, a surveyor, indicated he could create the easement and estimated costs around $2,000; the parties agreed easement work would be completed and recorded within eight months.
The Honachefskys later moved to vacate the settlement; the trial court denied the motion and this Court affirmed on appeal. Lemad thereafter recorded the settlement and notified the Honachefskys to perform the agreed easement work.
The Honachefskys did not perform; Lemad moved under R. 1:10-3 to enforce litigant’s rights. The trial court found the Honachefskys in violation, authorized limited power to Lemad to effect the work and ordered the Honachefskys to pay certain costs and counsel fees. The Honachefskys appealed; Lemad cross-appealed the fee award.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly enforced the settlement under R. 1:10-3	Lemad: settlement is binding; defendants agreed to establish and pay for the new 14-foot easement and therefore enforcement is appropriate	Honachefskys: settlement did not reflect original intent; they only agreed to $2,000 for repairs and not to obtain permits or to bear broader costs	Court: enforcement proper — defendants had agreed to create and bear costs of the new easement; failing to perform violated litigant's rights
Whether the court could authorize Lemad to procure work (permits/contractor) and seek reimbursement	Lemad: limited authority necessary to effectuate settlement and remedial relief under R. 1:10-3	Honachefskys: order imposes obligations beyond their understanding/intent	Court: remedy was tailored to enforce the settlement; granting limited authority and reimbursement was within discretion
Whether defendants could invoke R. 4:50-1 (relief from judgment) to void the settlement on appeal	Lemad: settlement affirmed and recorded; R. 4:50-1 issue was not raised below	Honachefskys: settlement is unconscionable and should be vacated under R. 4:50-1	Court: decline to consider R. 4:50-1 because it was not raised in trial court and thus is not preserved for appeal
Whether the counsel-fee award was proper and/or adequate	Lemad: fees incurred to enforce settlement justify a larger award (sought $11,113)	Honachefskys: fee award unwarranted or excessive	Court: awarding fees under R. 1:10-3 is discretionary; court carefully considered factors and $2,000 award was reasonable and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Barr v. Barr, 418 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2011) (standard of review for enforcing litigant’s rights under R. 1:10-3)
Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127 (2006) (R. 1:10-3 is a civil proceeding to coerce compliance)
Essex Cty. Welfare Bd. v. Perkins, 133 N.J. Super. 189 (App. Div. 1975) (scope of litigant’s-rights proceedings)
Cunningham v. Rummel, 223 N.J. Super. 15 (App. Div. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion review for remedial relief)
Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Packard-Bamberger & Co. v. Collier, 167 N.J. 427 (2001) (counsel-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Abbott v. Burke, 206 N.J. 332 (2011) (scope of relief in motions in aid of litigants’ rights)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (appellate courts will not consider issues not presented to the trial court)