NANCY GANJOIN VS. BRUCE HALL(FM-12-1542-98, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4894-15T2

Background

Nancy Ganjoin and Bruce Hall divorced in 1998; they agreed to share their child's college costs based on financial ability, but later disputed contributions when the child reached college age.
Ganjoin filed to compel Hall to contribute; Hall countered he could not afford it, moved to reduce child support, and challenged Ganjoin's income and asset disclosures.
The Family Court appointed a forensic accountant specifically to examine Ganjoin’s finances and ordered the parties to split the accountant’s cost 50/50, subject to later readjustment.
The accountant reported delays and increased work due to Ganjoin’s alleged lack of cooperation; after significant write-offs, each party had paid roughly equal amounts and a balance remained.
The parties settled most issues but reserved resolution of the accountant’s outstanding invoice; they waived other issues, including past payments.
The court ultimately ordered the remaining fee allocated roughly equally between the parties; Hall appealed, arguing Ganjoin alone should bear the cost because the work arose from questions about her finances and her noncooperation increased fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly allocated the forensic accountant’s fees equally	Ganjoin argued the cost division (and prior payments) should remain or the court erred in reallocating only the outstanding invoice	Hall argued Ganjoin’s underreporting and noncooperation caused the accountant’s appointment and increased fees, so she should bear the costs	Vacated the 50/50 allocation and remanded for reconsideration because the record doesn’t support equal responsibility for noncooperation
Whether the court could reallocate payments already made	Ganjoin contended the settlement waived reallocation of past payments	Hall sought reimbursement of payments he had already made	Court’s prior settlement language preserved only the outstanding invoice; appellate court upheld that past payments need not be reallocated
Standard for allocating expert fees appointed by the court	N/A (legal standard applies)	N/A	Allocation reviewed for abuse of discretion; court may consider parties’ finances, good faith, cooperation, reasonableness of positions, and results obtained
Whether a plenary hearing was required before the fee allocation decision	Ganjoin did not request further hearing in the opinion	Hall asserted the record showed Ganjoin’s noncooperation and the accountant’s statements supported reallocating fees to her	Appellate court found record inadequate to support factual conclusions about equal noncooperation and left open whether a plenary hearing is necessary on remand

Key Cases Cited

Platt v. Platt, 384 N.J. Super. 418 (App. Div. 2006) (trial court may allocate expert fees using factors similar to attorney-fee awards)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to Family Court’s factual findings and discretion)
Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super. 184 (App. Div. 2012) (abuse of discretion review and limits on unexplained departures from policy)
Flagg v. Essex Cnty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561 (2002) (court decisions must have rational explanations; reversed where decision lacks basis)
Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563 (1980) (trial courts must make findings of fact and state reasoning)
Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337 (App. Div. 1996) (need for factual findings to support discretionary rulings)
J.E.V. v. K.V., 426 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div. 2012) (fee awards in family actions can equalize parties’ ability to litigate)
Kelly v. Kelly, 262 N.J. Super. 303 (Ch. Div. 1992) (fee awards facilitate good-faith litigation by parties of unequal means)