LISA VAN HORN VS. HARMONY SAND & GRAVEL, INC. (L-0288-12, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4298-15T1

Background

In 2012 Lisa Van Horn sued Harmony Sand & Gravel to terminate an alleged lease her father made with Harmony and to eject Harmony from property she inherited. The trial court dismissed the complaint.
This Court affirmed dismissal in Van Horn v. Harmony Sand & Gravel, holding the agreement was a profit (right to extract materials), not a lease granting exclusive possession.
After the appellate decision, Van Horn moved in the trial court for an order enforcing the Appellate Division opinion and to obtain keys so she could access and rent a house on the property.
Harmony filed a cross-motion to dismiss Van Horn’s post-appeal motion as moot and sought counsel fees/sanctions under R. 1:4-8. The trial court dismissed Van Horn’s motion with prejudice and provisionally granted Harmony’s fee request.
The trial court entered an order making Van Horn and her counsel jointly and severally liable for $3,020 in fees; it denied reconsideration and explained Van Horn’s motion was frivolous and that the court could relax R. 1:4-8 technical requirements under R. 1:1-2(a).
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the sanctions award, concluding Harmony failed to comply with R. 1:4-8’s mandatory procedures and sanctions against a represented party for a motion were improper here.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly imposed R. 1:4-8 sanctions (attorney fees) for filing the post-appeal motion	Van Horn argued she sought only enforcement of the Appellate Division opinion and did not intend to interfere with Harmony's mining rights	Harmony argued Van Horn's motion was frivolous and sought fees under R. 1:4-8 after filing a cross-motion	Reversed: sanctions against Van Horn (a represented party) for filing a motion were improper where the Frivolous Litigation statute does not apply to motions and R. 1:4-8 procedures were not followed
Whether Harmony complied with R. 1:4-8's procedural safe-harbor and motion requirements	Van Horn argued she lacked the required written 28-day safe-harbor notice and separate sanctions motion	Harmony argued the cross-motion and oral argument gave notice and the court could relax technical compliance	Held: Harmony failed to meet R. 1:4-8 mandatory requirements (written safe-harbor, separate motion, certification of service); delay or oral notice did not cure defects
Whether court could invoke R. 1:1-2(a) to excuse noncompliance with R. 1:4-8	Van Horn contended rule compliance was required and could not be excused here	Harmony/trial court invoked R. 1:1-2(a) to avoid injustice and excuse strict compliance	Held: R. 1:1-2(a) could not be used to undermine the safe-harbor rule here; excusing compliance in these circumstances was improper
Whether any narrow exception to R. 1:4-8 notice requirements applied	Van Horn argued no exception applied because Harmony had time and means to provide written notice	Harmony relied on cases recognizing exceptions when notice would eliminate any effective remedy (e.g., bellicose trial statements)	Held: No exception applied; strict compliance required except in rare circumstances not present here

Key Cases Cited

Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor, 190 N.J. 61 (2007) (explains R. 1:4-8 safe-harbor notice and separate motion requirements for sanctions)
Lewis v. Lewis, 132 N.J. 541 (1993) (Frivolous Litigation Statute does not apply to motions)
LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (2009) (requires strict procedural compliance to impose R. 1:4-8 sanctions on counsel)
Trocki Plastic Surgery Ctr. v. Bartkowski, 344 N.J. Super. 399 (App. Div. 2001) (failure to follow R. 1:4-8 procedures is fatal to sanctions motion)
ASHI-GTO Assocs. v. Irvington Pediatrics, P.A., 414 N.J. Super. 351 (App. Div. 2010) (recognizes narrow exceptions to R. 1:4-8 notice where notice would eliminate any effective remedy)
Ferolito v. Park Hill Ass'n, 408 N.J. Super. 401 (App. Div. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review of sanctions where rule compliance is at issue)
Van Horn v. Harmony Sand & Gravel, Inc., 442 N.J. Super. 342 (App. Div. 2015) (prior appellate opinion holding the agreement was a profit, not a lease)