GARY W. FISCHER, JR. VS. JULIE D. FISCHER (FM-19-0496-16, SUSSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5294-18T2
GARY W. FISCHER, JR.
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JULIE D. FISCHER,
Defendant-Respondent/
Cross-Appellant,
v.
GARY FISCHER, SR.,
Individually and as Administrator
of the Estate of MARIE FISCHER,
Third Party Defendant-
Appellant/Cross-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted November 17, 2020 – Decided January 13, 2021
Before Judges Fisher and Moynihan.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Sussex County,
Docket No. FM-19-0496-16.
Nish & Nish, LLC, attorneys for appellant/cross-
respondent (Noelle K. Nish, on the briefs).
Gruber, Colabella, Liuzza, Thompson & Hiben,
attorneys for respondent/cross-appellant (Mark Gruber
and Natalie L. Thompson, on the briefs).
Gary W. Fischer, Jr., respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
After plaintiff Gary W. Fischer, Jr., filed for divorce from defendant Julie
D. Fischer, defendant answered and included a claim against plaintiff's parents,
third-party defendants Gary Fischer, Sr. (individually: Senior) and Marie
Fischer1 (collectively: the senior Fischers) alleging they "promised to deed the
[described] property owned by them" in Stillwater (the property) upon which
she and plaintiff would construct a one-family dwelling where she, plaintiff and
their children would reside; plaintiff, in turn, agreed to sell her home in
Hopatcong; she and plaintiff relied on the senior Fischers' promise and "invested
time, money, and constructed a dwelling"; and the senior Fischers "promised to
deed the property . . . upon completion of the dwelling." She claimed she "has
1
According to defendant's merits brief, after Marie Fischer's death during the
pendency of this action, the pleadings were amended to name Senior as
administrator of her estate. Nothing in the appellate record confirms that
amendment; but, whether made or not, the amendment has no bearing on our
analysis or decision.
A-5294-18T2
2
a legal and equitable interest in and into said dwelling and into the land and
improvements thereon," demanding judgment "imposing a constructive trust
upon the property" and "damages for the value of [her] equitable interest in the
property and dwelling [and] counsel fees."
The senior Fischers appeal from the trial judge's Dual Final Judgment of
Divorce and Related Reliefs, entered after an eleven-day bench trial, granting
defendant a monetary judgment in the amount of $167,000 to be secured by a
continuing constructive trust against the property, arguing defendant failed to
prove: they gifted the property; any promise or agreement by them regarding
the property; if an agreement was made, defendant and plaintiff fulfilled its
terms. They also argue that the monetary award is unsupported by the record.
In her cross-appeal, defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion
in finding she was entitled to only one-half of the property's value and denying
her counsel fees. 2
Recognizing the trial court's factual findings in a non-jury case "are
binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence,"
2
Without filing a cross-appeal, plaintiff submitted a pro se brief arguing he, by
waiving any claim against his parents, did not waive his rights regarding the
equitable distribution of assets, including, if it is ruled a marital asset, the
property.
A-5294-18T2
3
Gnall v. Gnall, 222 N.J. 414, 428 (2015), and, under our limited scope of review,
will not be disturbed "unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly
unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably
credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice," Fagliarone v. Twp. of N.
Bergen, 78 N.J. Super. 154, 155 (App. Div. 1963); see also Seidman v. Clifton
Savs. Bank, S.L.A., 205 N.J. 150, 169 (2011), we agree with the senior Fischers
that the proofs did not establish their gift of the property but affirm the trial
court's award based on promissory estoppel and its denial of counsel fees.
To prevail under the theory of promissory estoppel, defendant was
required to establish:
(1) a clear and definite promise by the promisor; (2) the
promise must be made with the expectation that the
promisee will rely thereon; (3) the promisee must in
fact reasonably rely on the promise, and (4) detriment
of a definite and substantial nature must be incurred in
reliance on the promise.
[Malaker Corp. Stockholders Protective Comm. v. First
Jersey Nat'l Bank, 163 N.J. Super. 463, 479 (App. Div.
1978).]
The trial court found "there was a clear and definite promise made by the
senior Fischers to build the property" for plaintiff and defendant. Although the
court found Senior's testimony was largely unbelievable, the court emphasized
Senior's deposition testimony about his intention to build homes for all his
A-5294-18T2
4
children and his trial testimony that he and Marie purchased the seventy-eight-
acre tract, which includes the property, to give each of his children the
"opportunity" to live near the senior Fischers. The court also highlighted
Senior's deposition and trial testimony admitting he offered to give plaintiff and
defendant the property, just as he did with his other son and his wife, David and
Hulda, in order for his family to be close to the senior Fischers, all living on
subdivided parcels of the tract they owned. The court found the senior Fischers
promised to transfer "the same type of deed" they had given to David and Hulda
for another subdivided parcel of the tract under the same terms. Finding
defendant's testimony "credible and compelling," the judge found:
[T]he cost to build the home would be paid for by the
senior Fischers. [Plaintiff] would perform most of the
labor and when the home was near completion and
qualified [for] a certificate of occupancy, a mortgage
would be obtained by [plaintiff] and [defendant] so they
could generate monies to pay for the finishes[] which
would include flooring, appliances, and paint.
[Defendant] testified that there had been no discussion
of any obligation to repay the senior Fischers for any
expenses incurred prior to obtaining the certificate of
occupancy.
The trial court found the senior Fischers promised to provide a deed when the
certificate of occupancy was issued.
A-5294-18T2
5
The trial court also noted Hulda's testimony that she and her husband did
not pay anything directly to the senior Fischers at or before the receipt of the
deed to their property, and they did not pay the senior Fischers any money from
the construction loan they obtained after they received the deed . The court,
finding Hulda, plaintiff and Senior "lied under oath repeatedly," concluded no
evidence contradicted defendant's testimony that the senior Fischers agreed to
pay for the construction of David's and Hulda's residence, and that after they
received the deed and certificate of occupancy, David and Hulda obtained a loan
for finishes. The court found that "was precisely the same plan that was being
followed" for plaintiff and defendant until October 2015.
The trial court also found defendant's credible testimony proved the
senior Fischers' promise was made with the expectation that defendant and
plaintiff would rely thereon "as they were encouraged to sell [defendant's]
premarital home" in Hopatcong and because "all parties invested time and
money into the construction of the residence." Defendant purchased the
Hopatcong home in which she and plaintiff lived after they returned from their
honeymoon. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff told defendant he wanted to list the
Hopatcong home because the senior Fischers suggested the couple "move into a
A-5294-18T2
6
home they already owned in Fredon" where they could live at no cost and save
money while their home on the property was being constructed.
Both defendant and plaintiff relied on the senior Fischers' promise,
causing a "detriment of a definite and substantial nature." Malaker Corp.
Stockholders Protective Comm., 163 N.J. Super. at 479. Based on defendant's
credible testimony, the trial court found she, in reliance on the promise of a
home on the property that was under construction, sold her Hopatcong home at
a loss requiring plaintiff to bring cash to the closing because the purchase price
was insufficient to cover the costs of sale. The court further found plaintiff
forwent lucrative full-time employment and remained at the family business
while he "devoted substantial time and effort for which he was not compensated
to construct the residence." As the trial court found, plaintiff "designed the
house and constructed it utilizing steel, which was the family business." While
some site work was completed prior to the marriage, "[t]he plans for the exterior
of the house were started in 2011 . . . and the floor plans for the interior of the
home were finalized in 2012." Defendant also participated in the design of the
floor plan. Construction began in 2012, and plaintiff completed "the majority
of the work," including the installation of steel panels, roof, chimney, and layout
of windows, front door, room framing and staircase.
A-5294-18T2
7
The court also perceived the parties' marriage was "completely shaped"
by the senior Fischers' promise because the "countless hours" plaintiff was
required to spend constructing the home altered the family dynamic. The court
discerned but for the senior Fischers' promise, family time would not have been
sacrificed. The couple installed a playground and the children kept toys at the
construction site because they spent so much time there. The site also contained
a picnic table where the family could eat meals. The court took particular note
of the family placing their "handprints in the [wet] cement at the foot of the
basement stairs, marking the home as theirs."
The promise also impacted the couple's living arrangements after the sale
of the Hopatcong home. After they moved into the Fredon residence, defendant
and Marie had a disagreement in 2012 because Marie entered the residence and
moved the younger couple's belongings. Although they continued to live there
and construction of the residence on the property continued, plaintiff was
informed by his parents that they wanted the couple to leave the Fredon
residence, resulting in their move into the condominium David and Hulda were
vacating in order to move into their Stillwater residence. Eventually, they had
to move out of the condominium in the fall of 2015 and reside with the senior
Fischers while the house on the property was still under construction; they
A-5294-18T2
8
moved their furniture and possessions into the basement of the unfinished house
on the property.
Abiding by our standard of review, we determine the trial court's
conclusions were supported by adequate, substantial evidence that the trial court
found credible; that evidence—chiefly defendant's testimony—established the
elements of promissory estoppel and justified the trial court's conclusion. Gnall,
222 N.J. at 428. "The essential justification for the doctrine of promissory
estoppel is the avoidance of substantial hardship or injustice were the promise
not to be enforced." Malaker Corp. Stockholders Protective Comm., 163 N.J.
Super. at 479. We agree with the trial court that "[t]he promise of the senior
Fischers should be enforced in equity."
To the extent the senior Fischers argue the facts of the case were contrary
to the trial court's findings—including that there was never a promise or
agreement made by them, and defendant sold her Hopatcong home for reasons
unrelated to the property—we defer to the trial court's detailed determinations
that Senior, plaintiff and Hulda were not credible and that defendant was.
"Deference to a trial court's fact-findings is especially appropriate when the
evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility." In re
A-5294-18T2
9
Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 117 (1997); see also Cesare v.
Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998).
The equitable remedy declared by the trial court comprehends that the
residence was not fully completed at the time plaintiff filed for divorce in June
2016. The court did not award defendant full value of the home as completed
and transferred. The value of the unfinished home and the land at the time the
complaint was filed reflects the extent of the detriment suffered by defendant
and plaintiff while they were married. That plaintiff and defendant divorced
before the promise was fulfilled cannot act to preclude defendant's entitlement
to compensation based on her reliance; nor can it result in a windfall to the senior
Fischers because the residence was not completed prior to the divorce, after
prolonged construction starting in 2012.
The senior Fischers' argument that the trial court based its valuation of the
unfinished home at $234,000 3 on defendant's expert's "opinion represent[ing]
nothing more than rank speculation . . . based on improper analysis" is without
3
The total valuation of $334,000 by defendant's expert included land value,
based on sales comparisons, of $60,000 and the value of site improvements at
$40,000. The land and site improvements were not valued by the senior
Fischers' expert because Senior instructed him to exclude same from his report.
On cross-examination, however, that expert estimated an additional $100,000
could be added to his valuation for the land and site work. Thus , there is no
dispute as to that portion of the valuation.
A-5294-18T2
10
merit. Contrary to defendant's contention, there was competent evidence offered
by defendant's expert upon which the trial court based its valuation.
Defendant's witness was qualified as an expert in real estate appraisal
without objection. The trial court accepted defendant's expert's explanation that
he did not use the market approach utilizing comparable sales—"generally
accepted as an appropriate method of estimating value for a residence . . . the
preferred method when comparable sales are available," Greenblatt v.
Englewood City, 26 N.J. Tax 41, 53 (Tax 2011)—because he could not find
comparable "sales of partially finished homes of this caliber" within the three
years prior to the valuation. The trial court also accepted the expert's testimony
that the steel fabrication used in the construction of the residence was akin to
that used in commercial buildings, making the residence unique, justifying the
use of the cost approach for valuing the residence, "normally relied on to value
special purpose or unique structures for which there is no market." Borough of
Little Ferry v. Vecchiotti, 7 N.J. Tax 389, 407 (Tax 1985).
In appraising the unfinished residence, defendant's expert first utilized a
program in which he input data about the residence as it existed in 2016 ; "the
base cost of the structure" was set by the program at "$62 a foot for the unit
cost." The expert also consulted with a representative of a commercial and
A-5294-18T2
11
residential contractor that performs steel frame construction in the northern New
Jersey region who gave an estimate cost of "approximately $65 a foot to get the
structure to where it is."
The trial court rejected the valuation given by the senior Fischers' expert
whose sales-comparison valuation was $200,000, concluding defendant's
expert's testimony was "more reliable, carrie[d] a more solid foundation and
explanation supporting his numbers and was overall more sound and credible ."
As the fact-finder in a bench trial, "the weight to be given to the evidence of
experts is within the competence of the [trial court]." LaBracio Family
Partnership v. 1239 Roosevelt Ave., Inc., 340 N.J. Super. 155, 165 (App. Div.
2001) (finding the trial court acted within its discretion when it considered the
conflicting expert opinions, accepted one expert's testimony and rejected the
other). The trial court was within its discretion in accepting defendant's expert's
valuation.
The valuation approach used to determine the fair market value of real
property "depends upon the particular facts and the reaction to" th ose facts by
the experts. City of New Brunswick v. State Div. of Tax Appeals, Dept. of
Treasury, 39 N.J. 537, 544 (1963); see also Borough of Little Ferry, 7 N.J. Tax
at 407. There is not one required approach when valuing real property, Samuel
A-5294-18T2
12
Hird & Sons, Inc. v. City of Garfield, 87 N.J. Super. 65, 72 (App. Div. 1965);
see also Genola Ventures-Shrewsbury v. Borough of Shrewsbury, 2 N.J. Tax
541, 551 (Tax 1981), and the use of two or more approaches together to establish
value has been recognized as appropriate, Palisadium Mgmt. Corp. v. Borough
of Cliffside Park, 29 N.J. Tax 245, 264 (Tax 2016). When the goal is to
ultimately determine the true value of the property, an expert may rely on his
adequately supported knowledge and experience to make that determination.
Samuel Hird & Sons, Inc., 87 N.J. Super. at 72; see also Genola Ventures-
Shrewsbury, 2 N.J. Tax at 551-52. "[W]hen the proofs submitted in support of
one approach overshadow those submitted in support of any other approach, the
court may conclude which approach should prevail." VBV Realty, LLC v.
Scotch Plains Twp., 29 N.J. Tax 548, 559 (Tax 2017). That is exactly what the
trial court did here. We find no error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's
conclusion that defendant was entitled to a share of the property valued at
$334,000 based on the theory of promissory estoppel.
Our determination renders it unnecessary to address the trial court's
conclusion that the senior Fischers' action constituted a gift, particularly because
A-5294-18T2
13
it involves an element not needed to establish promissory estoppel: delivery .4
We, nonetheless, disagree with the trial court's determination that delivery of
the gift occurred when defendant's "Hopatcong home was . . . sold on August
28th, 2011," finding that the sale was "an enormous and pivotal . . . transaction
in the eyes of the [c]ourt[,] . . . equivalent [to] the required delivery." The sale
of that home had no relation to the transfer by gift of the Stillwater property, an
act usually accomplished by deed. H.K. v. State, 184 N.J. 367, 382 (2005)
(citing N.J.S.A. 46:3-13). And there were no other indicia of delivery of the
property.
Turning to defendant's cross-appeal, we find her argument that the trial
court abused its discretion by only awarding her one-half of the value of the
home to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Defendant argues, without citing any supporting law, because the property was
martial property and plaintiff did not wish to assert a claim against his parents
for the property, she is entitled to the full cash value of $334,000.
4
"[A] valid gift has three elements. First, the donor must perform some act
constituting the actual or symbolic delivery of the subject matter of the gift.
Second, the donor must possess the intent to give. Third, the donee must accept
the gift." Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20, 29 (1988); see also Bhagat v. Bhagat,
217 N.J. 22, 40-41(2014).
A-5294-18T2
14
As we have already recognized, the trial court deemed it equitable that
defendant be awarded one-half of the value of the senior Fischers' promise. By
determining that an award to defendant of "the full value of $334,000 . . . would
be a windfall" to her, the trial court did not "'fail[] to consider controlling legal
principles,'" make "'findings inconsistent with or unsupported by competent
evidence,'" utilize "'irrelevant or inappropriate factors,'" and reach a "decision
[that] 'rest[s] on an impermissible basis.'" Elrom v. Elrom, 439 N.J. Super. 424,
434 (App. Div. 2015) (first quoting Storey v. Storey, 373 N.J. Super 464, 479
(App. Div. 2004); and then quoting Flagg v. Essex Cty. Prosecutor, 171 N.J.
561, 571 (2002)). Thus, it did not abuse its discretion.
Defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying her counsel fees
also lacks merit. The trial court can award attorney's fees at its discretion, R.
4:42-9(a)(1), and we will disturb those determinations "only on the rarest
occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of discretion," Rendine v.
Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995).
The trial court considered:
(1) the financial circumstances of the parties; (2) the
ability of the parties to pay their own fees or to
contribute to the fees of the other party; (3) the
reasonableness and good faith of the positions
advanced by the parties both during and prior to trial;
(4) the extent of the fees incurred by both parties; (5)
A-5294-18T2
15
any fees previously awarded; (6) the amount of fees
previously paid to counsel by each party; (7) the results
obtained; (8) the degree to which fees were incurred to
enforce existing orders or to compel discovery; and (9)
any other factor bearing on the fairness of an award.
[R. 5:3-5(c).]
It also considered the factors under Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct:
(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill
requisite to perform the legal service properly;
(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the
acceptance of the particular employment will preclude
other employment by the lawyer;
(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for
similar legal services;
(4) the amount involved and the results obtained;
(5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by the
circumstances;
(6) the nature and length of the professional
relationship with the client;
(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer
or lawyers performing the services;
(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
A-5294-18T2
16
We affirm the denial of counsel fees to defendant for the reasons set forth
in the trial court's comprehensive and cogent analysis of those factors in its oral
decision.
Affirmed.
A-5294-18T2
17