SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0790-19

SCOTT GOLDBERG,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v. 

SOCIETY HILL EAST

CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________

Submitted December 2, 2020 – Decided March 11, 2021

Before Judges Whipple and Firko.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. L-3284-

16.

Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, attorneys for appellant 

(Mark M. Wiechnik, Nicole D. Miller and David J. 

Byrne, on the briefs).

Law Offices of John T. Bazzurro, LLC, attorneys for 

respondent (David P. Levine, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-0790-19

Defendant Society Hill East Condominium Association, Inc. (the 

Association) appeals the orders of September 27, and October 2, 2019, 

awarding counsel fees. We reverse and remand for further findings.

Plaintiff Scott Goldberg, a condominium owner, filed suit against the 

Association after a fire damaged his unit. Plaintiff then filed a complaint 

seeking damages and injunctive relief so he could begin repairing the unit. 

After plaintiff refused to pay common expense assessments to the Association, 

the Association filed an answer and counterclaim to plaintiff's complaint.

In its counterclaim, the Association sought unpaid homeowner's 

association fees. Plaintiff argues the Association refused to make the 

necessary repairs to the unit and failed to meet its responsibility in 

compensating him for repairs he made. Following discovery, the Association 

moved for summary judgment against plaintiff. In September 2018, the trial 

court issued an order granting the Association's motion for unpaid Association 

dues. However, the judge reserved decision on defendant's request for 

attorney's fees, pending adjudication of plaintiff's complaint.
3

A-0790-19

The Association filed an offer of judgment on July 13, 2018, and the 

parties' claims were ultimately settled by a consent judgment in April 2019. 1 

As a term of the consent judgment, the Association reserved its right to seek 

attorney's fees and costs, and plaintiff reserved his right to oppose such a 

motion. The consent judgment also awarded plaintiff $350 to resolve his 

claims but entered judgment against him as well. Thus, the Association was 

entitled to $12,390 from plaintiff for unpaid assessments.

Following the entry of the consent judgment, the Association filed two 

applications seeking awards of attorney's fees and costs: the first application 

was pursuant to Rule 4:58-1; the second was pursuant to New Jersey's 

Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, and the Association's master deed. 

These applications, combined, sought $138,000 in total legal fees. On 

September 29, 2019, the trial court entered two orders: (1) "granting motion 

for payment of counsel fees and costs pursuant to [Rule] 4:58-1," filed by the 

Association, and (2) "granting motion for payment of counsel fees and costs 

pursuant to [Rule] 4:58-1," again filed by the Association. On October 2, 

2019, the trial judge issued an additional order, "granting [the] motion for 

payment of counsel fees and costs pursuant to the governing documents" filed 

1

 Plaintiff's attorney signed on April 11, and Association's counsel signed the 

judgment on April 17, 2019.
4

A-0790-19

by the Association. These orders awarded the Association $12,902.92 but did 

not explain the significant reduction from the $138,000 the Association sought. 

The Association appealed.

The Association does not appeal the underlying determination that it is 

entitled to a fee award, but asserts that the orders ignore a large portion of the 

fees requested and the court did not properly apply the rules related to a 

determination of a legal fee award. The Association argues the trial court 

improperly merged facts and law and did not separately address each 

application.

The court's orders combine the Association's separate and distinct 

applications, failing to address the Rule 4:58 application, and further fail to 

provide a separate analysis of the Association's Condominium Act application. 

Furthermore, the orders erroneously apply New Jersey Rule of Professional 

Conduct (RPC) 1.5(a) to reduce fees.

Rule 4:58-3 imposes mandatory financial consequences on a party who 

rejects a settlement offer that turns out to be more favorable than the ultimate 

judgment. Serico v. Rothberg, 234 N.J. 168, 176 (2018). The Rule seeks to 

prevent a party who has rejected a settlement from escaping mandatory 

payment for costs that were incurred because of that rejection. Id. at 176-77. 
5

A-0790-19

In general, the purpose of Rule 4:58 is "as a mechanism to encourage, 

promote, and stimulate early out-of-court settlement of . . . claims that in 

justice and reason ought to be settled without trial." Willner v. Vertical 

Reality, Inc., 235 N.J. 65, 81 (2018) (internal quotation omitted). 

Here, the trial court's September 27, 2019, orders state the attorney's fee 

and cost awards were appropriate pursuant to Rule 4:58-1. Nevertheless, the 

two orders each state that the Association sought only $15,529.92 and are 

devoid of explanation for the court's reduction of that amount under Rule 4:58. 

Instead, the orders provide an attached statement of reasons for reduction 

under RPC 1.5(a), resulting in a total award of $12,902. RPC 1.5(a) states that 

"[a] lawyer's fee shall be reasonable," and lists eight factors to be considered 

in determining the reasonableness of a fee. RPC 1.5(a)(1) to -(8). The court 

provided scant explanation for how it arrived at these figures, or why its 

starting point was so significantly far from the Association's original 

application of $65,905.53 in its offer of judgment. The court's order was 

conspicuously silent on whether it considered the affidavits that, as required by 

RPC 1.5, accompanied the Association's application. Thus, the trial court's 

reduction here was in error.
6

A-0790-19

New Jersey's Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, entitles a 

condominium association to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs 

"if authorized by the master deed or bylaws." N.J.S.A. 46:8B-15(e). In this 

way, the Legislature intended for the collection of association fees to be 

analyzed separately and not reduced by "payment of 'reasonable attorneys fees' 

incurred in the process of collection" of such funds. Park Place East Condo.

Assn v. Hovbilt, Inc., 279 N.J. Super 319, 323-24 (Ch. Div. 1994). Put 

another way, the unit owner must reimburse the association for fees incurred in 

its collection efforts. See ibid.

Here, the Association's second application was filed pursuant to New 

Jersey's Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1 to -38, and sought $71,397. The 

trial court's order granted the Association's application in an October 2, 2019, 

order, but merely stated the motion was granted for the statement of reasons 

attached in the September 27, 2019, order. No separate opinion was issued on 

the Condominium Act application.

Rule 1:7-4(a) requires a court "find the facts and state its conclusions of 

law thereon in all actions tried without a jury . . . ." "Trial judges are under a 

duty to make findings of fact and to state reasons in support of their 

conclusions." Giarusso v. Giarusso, 455 N.J. Super. 42, 53 (App. Div. 2018)
7

A-0790-19

(quoting Heinl v. Heinl, 287 N.J. Super. 337, 347 (App. Div. 1996)).

"Meaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the 

reasons for his or her opinion." Ibid. (quoting Strahan v. Strahan, 402 N.J. 

Super. 298, 310 (App. Div. 2008)). "Naked conclusions do not satisfy the 

purpose of [Rule] 1:7-4." Id. at 54 (quoting Curtis v. Finneran, 83 N.J. 563, 

570 (1980)). Thus, when a trial court does not "supply its reasoning[,]" an 

appellate court is "constrained to remand [on that] issue." Colon v. Strategic 

Delivery Sols., LLC, 459 N.J. Super. 349, 364 (App. Div. 2019).

Because the trial court's analysis is inadequate and incomplete, we are 

constrained to reverse and remand for legally cognizable findings under Rule

1:7-4(a) consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.