Mims v. City of Gloucester, 479 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 2024). Judge Perez Friscia wrote the Appellate Division’s opinion in this case. It deals with a subject not often addressed in a published opinion: the standards for allowing a party to proceed as an indigent, including waivers of fees.
The case came to the Appellate Division on plaintiff’s appeal after the Law Division denied his motion to proceed as an indigent. As Judge Perez Friscia observed in a footnote, though the Law Division’s ruling was “effectively without prejudice,” so that an appeal as of right was not proper, the panel sua sponte “grant[ed] leave to appeal nunc pro tunc in the interest of providing expeditious guidance to the bench and Bar on future indigency fee waiver applications.”
The Law Division found that plaintiff had not provided the documentation required for a finding of indigency. After describing in some detail the procedural requirements and information needed to claim indigency, the Appellate Division agreed and affirmed the ruling below, applying the abuse of discretion standard of review.
“The record shows plaintiff submitted the correct fee waiver ‘FORM A,’ but his form was incomplete, as he did not include the required financial information demonstrating proof of eligibility.” And “while plaintiff alleged receiving public assistance, he failed to submit documentation addressing the ‘income and assets standards.’ [Citation]. Specifically, plaintiff did not ‘[p]rovide two months of documentation for [any of] the following: [w]elfare, [p]ublic assistance, [u]nemployment, [d]isability, [s]ocial [s]ecurity, [c]hild [s]upport/[a]limony, other income,'” as required by a Fee Waiver Packet attached to the Administrative Directive, #03-17, that governs indigency applications. Nor did he submit six months’ worth of bank statements for all bank accounts he held, another requirement.
Judge Perez Frisicia noted that the Law Division’s dismissal was without prejudice. As a result, “[p]laintiff is not foreclosed from timely refiling the motion before the court with the certified information and required documentation.” The opinion then described what plaintiff needed to do and pointed him to “uniform forms and directions for filing a fee waiver application … on the New Jersey Courts website.” That was in the service of “the fundamental principle that a self-represented litigant is entitled to a waiver of court fees if indigency is demonstrated.”
Finally, the panel addressed and rejected plaintiff’s contention that he should receive an ongoing determination of indigency. “A permanent determination of indigency is prohibited by a Supplement to Directive #03-17, which provides ‘that the fee waiver application applies only to the specific case in which the application is filed’ and ‘the duration of a granted fee waiver application is one year after the date of the judgment.'” Thus, “if a court finds a plaintiff is indigent in a matter presently before it, the fee waiver remains for one year after a judgment is entered, but a new application is required for each separate court matter. A blanket finding of permanent indigency is not afforded.”