STEELE R. CHADWELL v. DEBORAH A. POST

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0

STEELE R. CHADWELL, d/b/a

STEELE R. CHADWELL, ATTORNEY

AT LAW,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DEBORAH A. POST,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

February 24, 2015

Submitted January 13, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Fisher, Nugent and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Morris County,

Docket No. DC-5309-07.

Deborah A. Post, appellant pro se.

Steele R. Chadwell, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

This matter before us for the second time arises from plaintiff Steele Chadwell's attempt to collect legal fees related to services he rendered in an administrative action concerning defendant Deborah Post's aging father. In the first proceeding, on November 26, 2007, the trial court dismissed defendant's malpractice counterclaim because her affidavit of merit was untimely, and on March 13, 2009, awarded plaintiff

quantum meruit fees in the amount of $3,905.12 approximately half of the $7,589.10 defendant alleged was due. We reversed the court's finding with regard to the sufficiency of defendant's affidavit and reinstated her counterclaim and, because plaintiff's fee entitlement depended upon the merits of the legal malpractice matter, we vacated the fee award. Chadwell v. Post, No. A-5424-08 (App. Div. Aug. 18, 2011). Thereafter, the parties stipulated to the trial court deciding the fee claim based upon the record developed at the first trial.

After trying the malpractice action, the trial judge determined that defendant failed to identify any legally cognizable damages and, accordingly, dismissed her counterclaim and reinstated the fee award.

Defendant appeals those rulings, arguing

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE AND/OR MAKE ANY FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN CONNECTION WITH SAME.

A. The trial court erred in its reliance on [Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428 (2005)] to posit a judicial estoppel "settlement" to avoid addressing the negligence claim.

B. The trial court erred in finding [d]efendant was not injured when (i) [p]laintiff's fees are a proximate damage pursuant to [Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996)], and (ii) [d]efendant provided evidence of damages.

C. The trial court erred by neglecting to recognize and give proper weight to the numerous acts of professional incompetency committed by Chadwell.

II. IN ITS MISGUIDED INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTUAL RECORD, THE TRIAL COURT ISSUED A DECISION THAT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT []OF THE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REINSTATING THE . . . DECISION HOLDING THAT THE DOCTRINE OF QUANTUM MERUIT JUSTIFIED AN AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES WITHOUT RECONSIDERING QUANTUM MERUIT IN LIGHT OF PLAINTIFF'S NEGLIGENCE.

A. Because counsel was discharged by me for good cause, he was not entitled to fees on a quantum meruit basis.

B. Because [p]laintiff contributed little or nothing to my cause, he was not entitled to counsel fees on a quantum meruit basis.

C. General principles of quantum meruit compel a conclusion that [p]laintiff was not entitled to counsel fees.

We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). At the conclusion of the bench trial that followed our earlier remand, the judge found "[defendant's] agreement to the settlement, her execution of the settlement, and her failure to show any damages suffered as a result of accepting the settlement" compelled a conclusion "that it would be inequitable for [defendant] to be able to maintain a malpractice case against [plaintiff]." These findings are supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record and are afforded our deference on appeal. Rova Farms Resorts, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974).