Fellerman v. Bradley

7 Citing cases

  1. Fellerman v. Bradley

    99 N.J. 493 (N.J. 1985)   Cited 73 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reading "fraud" expansively and "not limited to conventional notions of tortious fraud" so as to include "fraud upon the court"

    The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order. 192 N.J. Super. 556 (1983). It acknowledged that the privilege should be strictly construed to achieve its underlying purpose of facilitating the full exchange of information between an attorney and client.

  2. Bally's Park Place, Inc.

    120 F.R.D. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1988)   Cited 8 times
    Compelling production of statement where "[t]he plaintiff's independent efforts to reach [the witness] have proven unavailing"

    See also United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff, 196 N.J.Super. 553, 483 A.2d 821 (1984). As the Superior Court said in Fellerman v. Bradley, 191 N.J.Super. 73, 81, 465 A.2d 558, 562 (1983), aff'd 192 N.J.Super. 556, 471 A.2d 788 (1983), aff'd 99 N.J. 493, 493 A.2d 1239 (1985): " Initially the proper prerequisites of the privilege must exist to consider its application; that is, that a client had sought legal advice from an attorney in his capacity as such and that the communication relating to that purpose is offered in confidence.

  3. In re Lawrence

    237 B.R. 61 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999)   Cited 16 times
    Finding ยง 544 cut-off spouse's right because under New Jersey law a judgment creditor's rights are superior to a spouse's if the lien was obtained prior to divorce judgment

    Shaffer v. Shaffer, 154 N.J. Super. 491, 381 A.2d 1221 (App.Div. 1977). It follows that such fees and costs are in the nature of support and are therefore nondischargeable under Code section 523(a)(5). New Jersey law also permits the award of fees for expert witnesses in divorce cases. N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A:34-23; Fellerman v. Bradley, 191 N.J. Super. 73, 465 A.2d 558 (Ch.Div. 1983), aff'd 192 N.J. Super. 556, 471 A.2d 788, aff'd 99 N.J. 493 A.2d 1239. The court therefore has discretion to award Ms. Lawrence fees incurred for services of Haas, her forensic accountant, as well. As to the amount allowed under Code section 523(a)(5), the financial need of Ms. Lawrence is great, the ability of the debtor to pay such fees from future income is substantial, and the debtor's bad faith has been egregious.

  4. Fellerman v. Bradley

    96 N.J. 280 (N.J. 1984)

    Petition for certification granted. (See 192 N.J. Super. 556)

  5. Zirinsky v. Zirinsky

    138 A.D.2d 43 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 12 times

    In New Jersey, which has had an equitable distribution statute since 1971, the emerging case law has also sanctioned the use of independent appraisers. (See, e.g., Fellerman v. Bradley, 191 N.J. Super. 73, 465 A.2d 558, affd 192 N.J. Super. 556, 471 A.2d 788; Bowen v. Bowen, 96 N.J. 36, 473 A.2d 73; Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 320 A.2d 496.) In Fellerman, the court cited Rothman, which, it noted: "mandates that the matrimonial judge determine each asset's value for the purpose of equitable distribution and that an accountant will sometimes be needed to achieve that purpose.

  6. Zirinsky v. Zirinsky

    138 Misc. 2d 775 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987)   Cited 3 times

    In our sister State, New Jersey, appraisers for the court have been appointed. (See, Fellerman v Bradley, 191 N.J. Super. 73, 465 A.2d 558, affd 192 N.J. Super. 556, 471 A.2d 788.) Fellerman (supra) which cites Rothman v Rothman ( 65 N.J. 219, 320 A.2d 496): "mandates that the matrimonial judge determine each asset's value for the purpose of equitable distribution and that an accountant will sometimes be needed to achieve that purpose.

  7. Wolfson v. Bonello

    270 N.J. Super. 274 (App. Div. 1994)   Cited 17 times
    Recognizing the well-established principle that "equity follows the law"

    Anzalone v. Anzalone Bros., Inc., 185 N.J. Super. 481, 489, 449 A.2d 1310 (App.Div. 1982). See Fellerman v. Bradley, 191 N.J. Super. 73, 77-78, 465 A.2d 558 (Ch.Div.), aff'd, 192 N.J. Super. 556, 471 A.2d 788 (App.Div. 1983), aff'd, 99 N.J. 493, 493 A.2d 1239 (1985) (noting that court-appointed accounting expert "was to function as an arm of [the] court, accountable not to counsel, but directly to the court"). In this case, Olejar was appointed by the trial judge in order to resolve complex financial matters which were key to the resolution of the case.