Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

A “Fund in Court” Anniversary

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Nov 19, 2019 in Attorneys fees, Chancery issues, Class actions, Notable opinion writing, Supreme Court of New Jersey | 0 comments

On this date in 1962, the Supreme Court decided Sarner v. Sarner, 38 N.J. 463 (1962). The Court’s unanimous decision there, along with Sunset Beach Amusement Corp. v. Belk, 33 N.J. 162 (1960), on which Sarner relied extensively, is a foundation stone of the “fund in court” doctrine. That doctrine is currently embodied in Rule 4:42-9(a)(2), but was also contained in the predecessor rule that governed in Sarner.

The fund in court doctrine is one basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. As Justice Schettino stated in Sarner, “[t]he term ‘fund in court’ is one of art. It is applied where plaintiff’s actions have created, preserved or increased property to the benefit of a class of which he is a member.”

But as Chief Justice Weintraub said in Belk, “‘Fund in court’ is not too happy a term. It is a shorthand expression intended to embrace certain situations in which equitably allowances should be made and can be made consistently with the policy of the rule that each litigant shall bear his own costs. The difficulty with the term is that literally it may connote a fund within the precincts of the court in a physical or geographic sense whereas ‘in court’ refers to the jurisdictional authority of the court to deal with the subject matter.”

Returning to the quote from Sarner above, the key to a fund in court is that the plaintiff has advanced not only his own interests but those of others as well. “Where the litigant creates a fund which will benefit others, again it is just that the fund be charged. Included are actions by a stockholder on behalf of the corporation to recover assets diverted or withheld from it.”

Sarner was a stockholders’ derivative action that resulted in a judgment in favor of three corporations. The Court thus found a fund in court and held that a fee award was proper.

The individual defendant against whom the judgment was entered argued, however, that a fee was inappropriate because the companies had only three shareholders: the two plaintiffs and an individual defendant. The Court was “not impressed by this argument.” The companies should have brought the case and paid its own attorneys to do so. Their failure to do that forced plaintiffs to sue, and it was “only equitable” that the corporations, who benefited from the judgment, pay plaintiffs’ counsel fees out of the corporations’ recovery.

The Court’s rejection of that objection shows that its reference to benefiting a “class” did not refer to a “class” as we now think of that term in the context of class actions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or New Jersey’s Rule 4:32. A class of three would not be sufficiently numerous to satisfy the numerosity requirement of those rules. The equitable “fund in court” doctrine is not limited by numerosity.

Sarner went on to reverse the fee award on other grounds and remand for further proceedings. One of those was that the trial court erred in allowing fees for services before the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that “the application for services in the Appellate Division must be made to it.” Today, Rule 2:11-4 permits the appellate court to “refer the issue of attorney’s fees for appellate services for disposition by the trial court” (or, if applicable, by a relevant administrative agency). That occurs with regularity.

Subsequent cases, including Henderson v. Camden Cty. Mun. Util. Auth., 176 N.J. 554 (2003), have applied the “fund in court” doctrine to class actions under Rule 4:32. [Disclosure: I served as an expert witness on attorneys’ fees on the remand in Henderson]. But those cases stand on the shoulders of Sarner and Belk from back in the 1960’s.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Appellate Briefs
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Fast Five on Rhode Island Appellate Practice
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Appendix Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part Grammar interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Edwin Stern Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Richard Hoffman Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress