SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4535-16T3

IN THE MATTER OF THE WILL OF

E. WARREN BRADWAY, Deceased.

____________________________

Submitted May 24, 2018 – Decided June 25, 2018

Before Judges Gilson and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Probate Part, Camden 

County, Docket No. CP-0116-2016.

Cronin Trial Lawyers, attorneys for 

appellant/cross-respondent Marc A. Coleman 

(Joseph D. Cronin, on the briefs). 

Cozen O'Connor, PC, attorneys for respondent/

cross-appellant the Estate of E. Warren 

Bradway (John P. Johnson, Jr., and Mark A. 

Lazaroff, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM

This appeal arises out of a dispute concerning a holographic 

codicil to a will, written with the blood of the decedent, E. 

Warren Bradway. Defendant Marc Coleman appeals from a June 2, 

2017 judgment admitting Bradway's will and codicil to probate, and 

naming Bradway's partner, Kirston Baylock, executor of Bradway's 

estate. The estate cross-appeals from an August 15, 2017 order 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4535-16T3

denying its motion for sanctions and attorney's fees. We affirm 

the judgment because there was clear and convincing evidence that 

the codicil was intended to alter Bradway's will. We affirm the 

order because we discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of 

sanctions and fees.

I.

From 1997 to 2004, Bradway and Coleman were in a long-term 

relationship. During that time, they lived together and filed 

documents with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations 

recognizing their relationship as life partners. 

In a last will and testament, executed on June 28, 2001 (2001 

Will), Bradway named Coleman as his primary beneficiary and 

executor of his estate. The 2001 Will was typed, signed by 

Bradway, and witnessed by three individuals, whose signatures were 

attested to by a notary. The 2001 Will replaced Bradway's first 

will, which he executed in February 1977.

In 2004, Bradway and Coleman ended their relationship. 

Bradway moved out of the home he had shared with Coleman in 

Philadelphia. Thereafter, both Bradway and Coleman entered into 

new relationships with new partners. In January 2006, Coleman 

filed a certified life partnership termination statement with the 

Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, officially severing 

his relationship with Bradway.
3 A-4535-16T3

In September 2004, Bradway began a committed relationship 

with Baylock. On January 11, 2006, the same day that Coleman 

officially terminated his life partnership with Bradway, Bradway 

drafted a one-page handwritten codicil to his 2001 Will. The 

codicil named Baylock as Bradway's primary beneficiary and 

executor, by directing that all references to Coleman in the 2001 

Will be replaced with Baylock's name. Bradway drafted the codicil 

using his own blood as ink.

Baylock certified and testified that Bradway showed him the 

codicil in January 2006, and explained the purpose of the codicil. 

Baylock also testified that Bradway showed him the 2001 Will and 

showed him that he was storing both the 2001 Will and the codicil 

in a filing cabinet.

In 2011, Bradway moved out of his home in Philadelphia and 

began living in Baylock's home in New Jersey. Bradway died 

unexpectedly in April 2016. Baylock testified that he found 

Bradway's 2001 Will and codicil in the filing cabinet, which 

Bradway had moved into Baylock's home when they started living 

together in 2011.

After their relationship ended in 2004, Bradway and Coleman 

had limited contact with each other. They did, however, resolve 

a dispute concerning the closing of a bed and breakfast they had 

operated in Philadelphia. Ultimately, a Pennsylvania court ruled 
4 A-4535-16T3

that Coleman had agreed to pay Bradway $95,500 for his share of 

the business, and that as of 2012, Coleman still owed Bradway 

$76,000 plus interest. In his codicil, Bradway directed that that 

debt from Coleman "be in one-half measure forgiven."

In May 2016, the estate filed an action in the Chancery 

Division to admit Bradway's 2001 Will and codicil to probate. 

Coleman filed an answer and counterclaim, contesting the validity 

of the codicil. Thereafter, the parties engaged in discovery, 

including the production of reports from four experts who examined 

and analyzed the DNA and handwriting on the codicil.

Following the completion of discovery, the Chancery court 

conducted a bench trial in May 2017. During the first two days 

of trial, all four experts testified: Dr. Julie Heinig, the 

estate's DNA expert; Khody Detwiler, the estate's handwriting 

expert; Dr. Megan Shaffer MacKenzie, Coleman's DNA expert; and 

Robert Baier, Coleman's handwriting expert.

The DNA experts did not have a DNA sample from Bradway. 

Accordingly, their analysis and opinions were based on DNA 

extracted from the blood on the codicil as compared to DNA samples 

provided by Bradway's two brothers. Dr. Heinig testified that the 

codicil was written using blood, and opined that the blood had a 

99.9999 percent probability of coming from a full-sibling of 

Bradway's brothers. Dr. MacKenzie also confirmed that the codicil 
5 A-4535-16T3

was written using blood. She opined that the DNA in the body of 

the codicil reflected "mixed-source profiles" that came from more 

than one contributor. She ultimately acknowledged, however, that 

the major contributor of the DNA was a full-sibling of Bradway's 

brothers, and that the mixed-source profiles may have been caused 

by transfer DNA left by others who handled the codicil prior to 

her analysis. Dr. MacKenzie also acknowledged that her lab had 

used all of the blood from the signature line on the codicil to 

analyze the DNA.

Both handwriting experts, Detwiler and Baier, opined that the 

handwriting in the body of the codicil was Bradway's handwriting. 

Detwiler also opined that the signature on the codicil was 

Bradway's authentic signature and that the signature had not been 

made using "autopen." Baier opined that the signature on the 

codicil was in Bradway's handwriting, but stated that he could not 

rule out that the signature had been placed there by a "robotic 

machine" or "cut-and-paste."

After Coleman's experts finished testifying, the estate moved 

for a directed verdict. The estate argued that both DNA experts 

agreed that the body of the codicil was written in the blood of a 

full-sibling of Bradway's brothers. Accordingly, Bradway was the 

only possible source of the blood on the codicil. The estate also 

argued that the handwriting experts agreed that the body of the 
6 A-4535-16T3

codicil was in Bradway's handwriting and that any argument 

concerning the signature was not relevant because Coleman's own 

DNA expert acknowledged that the signature was written in the 

blood of a paternal relative of Bradway's brothers. 

Coleman opposed the motion contending that it was premature 

because he had additional witnesses. In that regard, Coleman 

argued that he was prepared to call two witnesses who would testify 

that at the time of Bradway's death there was no signature on the 

codicil. Thus, Coleman contended that Baylock may have placed the 

signature on the codicil after Bradway's death.

The trial judge granted the estate's motion, reasoning that 

there was clear and convincing evidence that Bradway intended the 

codicil to alter his 2001 Will. Based on the testimony from both 

DNA experts, the court found that the codicil was written in 

Bradway's own blood. The court then reasoned that even without a 

signature, the handwriting and content of the codicil established

Bradway's intent to alter his 2001 Will. In that regard, the 

court analyzed the codicil and found several identifiers that 

clearly and convincingly established Bradway's intent to alter his 

2001 Will. 

The court then concluded that the codicil was valid under 

N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3. Accordingly, on June 2, 2017, the trial court 

entered an order of judgment admitting the 2001 Will and codicil 
7 A-4535-16T3

to probate and appointing Baylock as the executor of Bradway's

estate.1

Thereafter, the estate filed a motion for sanctions and 

attorney's fees against Coleman and his counsel. In making that 

motion, the estate relied on Rule 1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, 

which allow for the imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees 

against a party and counsel who pursue frivolous litigation. The 

court heard oral arguments on August 11, 2017, and on August 15, 

2017, it issued an order denying that motion. The court explained 

that it did not find Coleman's pursuit of the litigation to be 

 

1 Prior to trial, a dispute arose concerning two missing coin 

collections: one collection worth approximately $400,000, and 

another worth approximately $4000. The estate contended that 

Bradway's brothers had taken the coin collections, which belonged 

in Bradway's estate. Bradway's brothers contended that they had 

only taken the $4000 coin collection, which belonged to their 

mother and did not belong in Bradway's estate. In October 2016, 

the court held a teleconference with the parties and advised them 

that it was severing the dispute concerning the $400,000 coin 

collection from the probate action, because any alleged theft was 

a criminal matter to be handled by the police. The court also 

advised the parties that the question of whether the $4000 coin 

collection should be included in Bradway's estate would be 

addressed after the probate matter was decided. On October 19, 

2016, the court entered an order allowing Bradway's brothers to 

retain possession of the $4000 coin collection pending the outcome 

of the probate matter, but directed the brothers not to dissipate 

that asset. Ultimately, the estate withdrew its motion concerning 

the $4000 coin collection. Baylock filed a police report 

concerning the missing $400,000 coin collection, but that issue 

was not addressed or decided during the probate matter and, 

therefore, is not before us on appeal. 
8 A-4535-16T3

frivolous because Coleman had taken reasonable positions in light 

of the "eccentric" nature of Bradway's preparation of the codicil 

using his own blood.

II.

Coleman now appeals from the January 2, 2017 judgment.2 The 

estate cross-appeals from the August 15, 2017 order denying its 

motion for sanctions and attorney's fees. We will address the 

appeal and cross-appeal in turn.

A. Coleman's Appeal

On appeal, Coleman argues that the trial court erred by: 

(1) prematurely granting a directed verdict before he submitted 

all of his evidence; and (2) not viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to him in deciding the estate's motion for a 

directed verdict. In support of these arguments, Coleman states 

that he was prepared to call two witnesses who would have testified 

that Bradway's signature was not on the codicil at the time of his

death. Coleman then argues that there was not clear and convincing 

evidence that Bradway intended the codicil to alter his 2001 Will. 

We disagree and affirm.

 

2 Coleman initially filed a notice of appeal before the trial court 

ruled on the estate's motion for sanctions and fees. Thereafter, 

Coleman withdrew that initial notice of appeal and reinstated it 

after the trial court entered the August 15, 2017 final order.
9 A-4535-16T3

We conduct a de novo review of a directed verdict, using the 

same standard as the trial court. Akhtar v. JDN Props. at Florham 

Park, LLC, 439 N.J. Super. 391, 403 (App. Div. 2015). Accordingly, 

we "must accept as true all evidence that supports the non-moving 

party's position and all favorable legitimate inferences therefrom 

to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law." Ibid. (quoting Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 

5 (1969)). 

In reviewing evidence rulings, however, we use an abuse of 

discretion standard. See Estate of Hanges v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. 

Ins. Co., 202 N.J. 369, 383-84 (2010). ("Evidentiary decisions are 

reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard because . . . the 

decision to admit or exclude evidence is one firmly entrusted to 

the trial court's discretion.")

In a probate matter, the court's role is "to ascertain and 

give effect to the probable intention of the testator." Fid. 

Union Tr. v. Robert, 36 N.J. 561, 564 (1962); In re Prob. of Will 

& Codicil of Macool, 416 N.J. Super. 298, 307 (App. Div. 2010). 

In so doing, the court must "look to the language of the will to 

determine if the testator expressed an intent as to how the 

property should be distributed." In re Estate of Hope, 390 N.J. 

Super. 533, 539 (App. Div. 2007).
10 A-4535-16T3

Writings intended to be wills are governed by statutory 

provisions. See N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2 to -3. N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2 addresses 

the technical requirements for wills and describes two types of 

wills: the traditional will, N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2(a), and the 

holographic will, N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2(b). Both of those subsections 

authorize wills that are in writing and signed by the testator. 

Macool, 416 N.J. Super. at 311.

N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 addresses a form of testamentary document 

that "was not executed in compliance with N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2." It 

provides:

Although a document or writing added upon a 

document was not executed in compliance with 

[N.J.S.A.] 3B:3-2, the document or writing is 

treated as if it had been executed in 

compliance with [N.J.S.A.] 3B:3-2 if the 

proponent of the document or writing 

establishes by clear and convincing evidence 

that the decedent intended the document or 

writing to constitute: (1) the decedent's 

will; (2) a partial or complete revocation of 

the will; (3) an addition to or an alteration 

of the will; or (4) a partial or complete 

revival of his formerly revoked will or of a 

formerly revoked portion of the will.

[N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3.]

To be recognized as a will or a codicil under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3, the 

document or writing need not be signed by the testator. Macool, 

416 N.J. Super. at 311.
11 A-4535-16T3

In granting the directed verdict to the estate, the trial 

court did not rely on N.J.S.A. 3B:3-2. Instead, the court accepted 

Coleman's position that the codicil was unsigned at the time of 

Bradway's death. Thus, the court applied N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3, and 

focused on whether there was clear and convincing evidence in the 

body of the codicil to establish that Bradway intended to alter 

his 2001 Will. We also look to N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3.

Here, the handwriting experts agreed that the body of the 

codicil was written in Bradway's handwriting. Thus, there was 

clear and convincing evidence that Bradway wrote the codicil. 

Indeed, on this appeal Coleman "concedes that the body of the 

codicil in question was written by Mr. Bradway." The question 

under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3 then becomes whether there is clear and 

convincing evidence that Bradway intended the codicil to alter his 

2001 Will.

We agree with the trial court that evidence of Bradway's

clear and convincing intent is established by the codicil itself. 

First, the codicil uses language showing a clear intent to be a 

freely attested to "codicil." In that regard, the codicil states:

In the Name of God, Amen

This codicil drawn by me on 11 January 2006 

and transcribed in mine own hand – I of sound 

and disposing mind and memory, of my own free 
12 A-4535-16T3

will and volition devoid of any external 

influence that may be contrary to my wishes 

amend my last will & testament bearing the 

date of 28 June 2001 ----

Second, the codicil has at least four identifiers that clearly 

and convincingly establish that Bradway intended to alter his 2001 

Will. The codicil: (1) states that it is Bradway's "wish[]" to 

"amend" his 2001 Will; (2) references his former partner, "Mark 

Albert Coleman"; (3) "directs" that any references to Coleman in 

the 2001 Will be replaced with his current partner, "Kirston John 

Baylock"; and (4) references the debt Coleman owed to him from the 

home they had operated as a bed and breakfast at "1203 Pine Street, 

Philadelphia City and County within the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania[.]"

Finally, that the codicil was prepared using Bradway's own 

blood adds support to the other clear and convincing evidence that 

Bradway intended the codicil to alter his 2001 Will. All of the 

experts agreed that the body of the codicil was written in blood 

that came from a full-sibling of Bradway's brothers. The estate's 

expert opined that the codicil was written in Bradway's blood. 

Coleman's DNA expert testified that the blood was not from either 

of Bradway's two known brothers – leaving Bradway as the only 

logical source of the blood.
13 A-4535-16T3

Coleman contends that the evidence was not clear and 

convincing because there was a dispute over whether Bradway had 

signed the codicil before his death. That contention is not 

relevant under N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3, because a signature is not 

necessary. Moreover, that contention does not undermine the clear 

and convincing evidence of Bradway's intent to write the codicil 

as an alteration of his 2001 Will. Even without his signature, 

we have Bradway's undisputed handwritten intentions clearly and 

convincingly expressed in the body of the codicil.

There was also no error in the trial court deciding the 

directed verdict before Coleman finished presenting his full case. 

Coleman represented that his remaining evidence would be testimony 

that the codicil was not signed at the time of Bradway's death. 

As already explained, the lack of Bradway's signature does not 

undercut the clear and convincing evidence of Bradway's intent as 

expressed in the codicil which he indisputably wrote. Moreover, 

in deciding the estate's motion for a directed verdict, the trial 

court accepted the proffered testimony that the codicil was 

unsigned at the time of Bradway's death. Accordingly, Coleman was 

not prejudiced by the court's decision to address the estate's 

motion before hearing that testimony. 

Normally, a motion for a directed verdict "may be made by a 

party either at the close of all the evidence or at the close of 
14 A-4535-16T3

the evidence by an opponent." R. 4:4-1. The language of the 

rule, however, does not prohibit a motion from being made at 

another time. Thus, the rule states when a party "may" make a 

motion for judgment. Here, we find no abuse of discretion in the 

trial court's decision not to hear testimony that would have only 

gone to the alleged lack of Bradway's signature on the codicil at 

the time of his death.

In short, the record developed at trial established clear and 

convincing evidence that Bradway intended the codicil to alter his 

2001 Will. Accordingly, the codicil was properly admitted for 

probate in accordance with N.J.S.A. 3B:3-3.

B. The Estate's Cross-Appeal

Under the frivolous litigation statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, 

the assessment of attorney's fees and sanctions rests within the 

sound discretion of the trial court. In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 

N.J. Super. 64, 73 (App. Div. 2012). Accordingly, we review such 

decisions under an abuse of discretion standard. Ibid. (citing 

United Hearts, L.L.C. v. Zahabian, 407 N.J. Super. 379, 390 (App. 

Div. 2009)).

"A party who prevails in a civil action . . . may be awarded 

all reasonable litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees, if 

the judge finds . . . that a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim 

or defense of the non[-]prevailing [party] was frivolous." 
15 A-4535-16T3

N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(a)(1). To receive a fee award for frivolous 

litigation, the prevailing party must show that "the 

non[-]prevailing party either brought the claim in bad faith for 

harassment, delay, or malicious injury; or 'knew, or should have 

known that the complaint [or] counterclaim . . . was without [any 

reasonable] basis in law or equity . . . .'" Ehrlich, 427 N.J. 

Super. at 77 (quoting N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(b)). 

In addition, an attorney may be sanctioned for asserting 

frivolous claims on behalf of a client. R. 1:4-8. A claim is 

considered frivolous when "no rational argument can be advanced 

in its support, or it is not supported by any credible evidence, 

or it is completely untenable." First Atl. Fed. Credit Union v. 

Perez, 391 N.J. Super. 419, 432 (App. Div. 2007). Even when some 

allegations are later determined to lack merit, however, a 

complaint is not rendered frivolous if it also contains 

non-frivolous claims. Ehrlich, 427 N.J. Super. at 77.

In denying the estate's motion, the court found that Coleman 

and his counsel asserted legitimate claims regarding Bradway's 

intent to alter his 2001 Will. We discern no abuse of discretion 

in that decision and, accordingly, we affirm the order.

Affirmed.