[brief] Defendants’ obstruction has required extraordinary efforts by Plaintiff and his counsel to attempt to collect on the judgment.  Through exhaustive work, Plaintiff has secured the turnover of multiple accounts, the appointment of a special fiscal agent to operate and then sell Defendant [...] ([...]), a closely-held family company that Defendants foisted the burden of the judgment upon, liquidated real estate, and engaged in discovery to locate and liquidate other property, including [...]’s Porsche 911; Plaintiff has obtained $21.5 million towards the judgment, with approximately $6.2 million outstanding.  This firm, which has worked on a contingency basis since the underlying trial concluded in 2009, was required to undertake substantial uncompensated post-judgment work to collect on a judgment from Defendants who could have readily paid it in full at any time or bonded it, either of which would have eliminated the need for the millions of dollars in time spent chasing them.  Thus, when efforts to enforce the judgment in New Jersey were largely exhausted in 2022, Plaintiff moved for an award of post-judgment attorneys’ fees.  The motion was supported by a brief explaining the entitlement to those fees because of Defendants’ fraud on the court, and a detailed affidavit addressing the factors of R.P.C. 1.5 and supported by comprehensive billing records.  Significantly, the motion did not include the $1.4 million spent opposing Defendants’ countless appeals.  Nor, of course, did it include any fees previously awarded.  After deliberating for months and holding oral argument in April 2023, the Chancery court granted the motion, finding Plaintiff entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and that the fees sought were reasonable, thus awarding $3,570,357.50 in fees.  That fee award was well within the court’s discretion and justified by the egregious circumstances of this case.  None of [...]’s arguments on appeal support its reversal.  [...] rests heavily on an invented procedural technicality, claiming there needed to be a separate motion to establish entitlement to fees before quantification of them could be addressed.  But that position finds no support in the Court Rules.  Indeed, where the Rules address it, they require both issues to be addressed in the same motion.  [...] also claims that it was “impossible” for the Chancery court to review the contemporaneous billing records submitted, but the Hon. [...], P.J.Ch., expressly stated that he reviewed the time entries.  Judge Jerejian likewise acted within his broad discretion in finding the rates charged to be reasonable and in line with those charged by other area firms, after considering supporting documentation of rates charged by comparable firms.  Finally, [...] claims the fees sought were excessive, but despite ample time to do so, [...] has not identified any specific duplicative or objectionable time entry, and has refused to delineate how much he and [...] have spent on attorneys.  This complex, high-stakes matter – handled on a contingency basis – required, due only to Defendants’ yearslong fraud on the New Jersey Judiciary, exhaustive work and dedicated effort.  The fee award should be affirmed in full, and [...]’s appeal dismissed.