190 A.3d 1073
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2018Background
- Plaintiff (S.T.) sued defendants for injuries from an object striking her head at 1515 Broad Street; amended complaints included multiple defendants and third-party claims.
- As trial neared, defendants made an offer of judgment for $475,000; plaintiff's counsel moved to appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) citing diminished capacity.
- The court appointed a GAL to investigate under Rule 4:26-2(b)(4); after the GAL’s report the court empowered the GAL to decide whether to try or settle.
- The GAL reviewed records, interviewed plaintiff twice, and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff lacked capacity to decide trial vs. settlement.
- Parties negotiated a $625,000 settlement; the court approved the settlement under Rule 4:44 after concluding it was fair and in plaintiff’s best interests.
- Plaintiff appealed the GAL appointment/empowerment and the settlement approval; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper rule and basis for GAL appointment | Counsel invoked R. 4:26-2(b)(3); plaintiff argued Rule 4:86 procedures required (full guardianship proof) | Court may appoint GAL under R. 4:26-2(b)(4) on its own motion for good cause | Appointment governed by R. 4:26-2(b)(4); R.4:86 procedures not required for GAL appointment |
| Standard to appoint GAL to investigate capacity | Plaintiff argued higher (guardianship) standard applies | Court should apply "good cause" standard to appoint GAL to investigate | Appointment to investigate governed by "good cause" under R.4:26-2(a); lower standard than full guardianship |
| Standard to empower GAL to make litigation decisions (e.g., accept settlement) | Plaintiff argued empowering GAL effectively removes her contractual settlement right and requires high proof | Defendants/GAL argued court may empower GAL after sufficient evidence of incapacity for specific decision(s) | Court must find by clear and convincing evidence that plaintiff lacks capacity to make the specific litigation decision(s) before empowering GAL; here that standard was met |
| Validity and fairness of settlement approved by court | Plaintiff contended settlement could not bind her absent her agreement and challenged fairness | Defendants and GAL argued GAL steps into plaintiff's shoes if empowered and settlement reviewed under R.4:44 protects ward | Court applied R.4:44 hearing, found settlement fair and reasonable, and approved distribution; appellate court found no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- M.R. v. X, 135 N.J. 155 (1994) (GAL roles: investigator and, where appropriate, decision-maker; clear-and-convincing standard for specific incapacity)
- J.B. v. W.B., 215 N.J. 305 (2013) (GAL assists court in determining best interests)
- In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321 (1985) (analysis of capacity and respecting self-determination)
- Zukerman by Zukerman v. Piper Pools, Inc., 232 N.J. Super. 74 (App. Div. 1989) (GAL authority and limits; court oversight of settlements)
- Peskin v. Peskin, 271 N.J. Super. 261 (App. Div. 1994) (courts must avoid coercive tactics to force settlements)