BRIDGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. PEOPLEMOVER, LLCBRIDGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. REHOLD, INC.(F-22285-14 AND F-23290-14, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(CONSOLIDATED)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2055-15T1
A-2683-15T2
BRIDGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PEOPLEMOVER, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________
BRIDGE PLAZA CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
REHOLD, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_____________________________
Submitted May 3, 2017 – Decided June 5, 2017
Before Judges Accurso and Manahan.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Monmouth County, Docket
Nos. F-22285-14 and F-23290-14.
Rutter & Roy, LLP, attorneys for appellants
(Richard B. Tucker, Jr., of counsel and on
the brief).
Ansell, Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys for
respondent (Mark M. Wiechnik, of counsel and
on the brief).
PER CURIAM
In these two appeals, calendared back-to-back and
consolidated for purposes of this opinion, defendants
Peoplemover, LLC and Rehold, Inc. appeal from orders granting
plaintiff Bridge Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. counsel
fees incurred in connection with its prosecution of lien claims
for unpaid common expense assessments against the multiple units
owned by defendants. Because we cannot find the trial court
abused its discretion in making those fee awards, we affirm.
The essential facts are undisputed and easily summarized.
Peoplemover is the owner of seven units and Rehold is the owner
of five units in Bridge Plaza, a commercial condominium office
park in Manalapan. When defendants failed to pay common expense
assessments due and owing, the Association recorded liens
against the units pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8B-21, which it sued
to foreclose in these actions. Defendants opposed these
actions. Plaintiff was not only required to pursue summary
judgment, but to oppose defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the
complaints.
2 A-2055-15T1
Following entry of summary judgment, plaintiff moved for an
award of attorneys' fees in each action as permitted by N.J.S.A.
46:8B-21 and the Association's master deed and by-laws. See
Island House Condo. Ass'n v. Feldman, 245 N.J. Super. 407, 412
(Ch. Div. 1990). Against Peoplemover, plaintiff sought fees of
$21,917.50 and costs of $1976.10. Against Rehold, plaintiff
sought fees of $20,752.50 and costs of $1871.38. The
accompanying certifications detailed the amounts billed the
Association by its counsel in each matter, showing dates, time
spent and hourly rates or flat fees charged; the experience of
the lawyers who worked on the matters; and attached the fee
agreement.
Defendants opposed the motions, contending, among other
things, that the fee certifications failed to comply with Rule
4:42-9 and RPC 1.5(a); contained multiple entries for the same
services as well as entries for unnecessary services; included
services performed by a paraprofessional; and were generally
unreasonable. The trial court rejected those arguments, finding
in both matters that the certifications complied with Rule 4:42-
9; that counsel did not double-bill for time in either matter;
that the certifications were in compliance with RPC 1.5; that
defendants' arguments to the contrary were not persuasive; that
the results obtained fully vindicated plaintiff's rights; and
3 A-2055-15T1
that the fees billed were reasonable and should be awarded in
their entirety.
Defendants appeal, reprising the same issues in each matter
and arguing that the trial court's findings were inadequate. We
reject those arguments.
Fee awards, where permissible, are committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. Packard-Bamberger & Co. v.
Collier, 167 N.J. 427, 444 (2001). It is undisputed that
counsel fees are allowable here pursuant to Rule 4:42-9(a)(8)
(allowing fees in all cases permitted by statute), the
Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-21, and the Association's master
deed and by-laws. See Holbert v. Great Gorge Vill. S. Condo.
Council, Inc., 281 N.J. Super. 222, 229-30 (Ch. Div. 1994)
(holding that a condominium association need only show that its
master deed or by-laws provides for an award of counsel fees in
an action to collect overdue assessments to be entitled to fees
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8B-21).
As noted by the trial court, the reasonableness of any
application for fees is governed by Rule of Professional Conduct
1.5(a) (listing factors in determining reasonableness of counsel
fees) and Rule 4:42-9(b) (requiring applications for allowance
of fees to address the factors included in RPC 1.5(a)). R.M. v.
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 190 N.J. 1, 11-12 (2007). Our
4 A-2055-15T1
Supreme Court has made clear its expectation that "fee
determinations by trial courts will be disturbed only on the
rarest occasions, and then only because of a clear abuse of
discretion." Rendine v. Pantzer, 141 N.J. 292, 317 (1995).
Although the judge's reasons on the record for the award of
fees in these actions were not lengthy, condominium lien
foreclosures are not uncommon in the Chancery courts.
Accordingly, our General Equity judges are well versed in these
matters and able to ascertain the truth of what constitutes a
reasonable amount of time for particular tasks based on their
experience and knowledge as well as their familiarity with the
specific cases before them.
The Legislature authorized the award of reasonable
attorneys' fees in these actions to prevent the reduction of
sums due the condominium association by the fees necessary to
obtain payment. See Park Place E. Condo. Ass'n v. Hovbilt,
Inc., 279 N.J. Super. 319, 323-24 (Ch. Div. 1994) (explaining
the statutory authorization for counsel fees recognizes that the
funds needed to run the condominium should not be "reduced by
the payment of 'reasonable attorneys' fees' incurred in the
process of collection of the charges"). The fees owed the
5 A-2055-15T1
Association in this matter were not trifling.1 Because we find
defendants' specific claims of error, that no fees could be
awarded for paraprofessional services and that the fees should
have been capped at twenty percent or awarded in accordance with
Rule 4:42-9(a)(4) governing mortgage foreclosure actions, to be
without merit, see Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E), and are satisfied the
trial judge did not abuse her discretion in judging the
reasonableness of the fees generally, we affirm.
Affirmed.
1
In the aggregate, the lien claims against all twelve units
exceeded $75,000.
6 A-2055-15T1