Law Lessons from CINDY RAMIREZ n/k/a CINDY MARCONI v. RYAN RAMIREZ, App. Div., A-2035-08T3, November 24, 2009:

An award of counsel fees and costs in a matrimonial action rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233 (1971). The exercise of that discretion is governed by consideration of the factors set forth in Rule 5:3-5(c) which are:

(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) 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.

“‘Where one party acts in bad faith, the relative economic position of the parties has little relevance’ because the purpose of the award is to protect the innocent party from unnecessary costs and to punish the guilty party.” Yueh v. Yueh, 329 N.J. Super. 447, 461 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting Kelly v. Kelly, 262 N.J. Super. 303, 307 (Ch. Div. 1992)). Where there was conduct in the litigation that was unwarranted and clearly motivated by bad faith, a counsel fee award is appropriate “to prevent a maliciously motivated party from inflicting economic damage on an opposing party by forcing expenditures for counsel fees.” Kelly, supra, 262 N.J. Super. at 307.

See related Blog Post, published in the New Jersey Family Law blog.

NOTE: Adwokat / Prawnik Pawel Kostro mowi po polsku.

Technorati Tags: , and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin