SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 0375
- 17T1

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ALBERT J. GUGLIELMELLI, DECEASED

_______________________________

Submitted May 29, 2018

- Decided Before Judges Accurso and O'Connor. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Camden County, Docket No. CP
- 00 0096
- 15. Jehl & Fabian, attorneys for appellant s Geraldine M. Guglielmelli and Denise Green ( Joseph F. Fabian, on the brief ). Archer & Greiner, PC, attorneys for respondent Donna Mulford ( Anthony R. La Ratta , on the brief).
PER CURIAM When Albert J. Guglielmelli died in 2008, he left a widow,
p laintiff Geraldine M. Guglielmelli , and two daughters , defendant/third

- party plaintiff Donna Mulford and t hird

- party defendant Denise Green . The Guglielmellis had been married for
decades at Albert's death , and he had always handled the family's finances. Mulford , who had moved back in with her NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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.

September 6, 20182 A - 0375
- 17T1

parents following a divorce fifteen years before , continued living with her mother after her father's death and assumed responsibility for her mother's finances under a power of attorney. Mulford also served as the executrix of her father's estate, Guglielmelli and Green having renounced in her favor. Several months after Albert's death, Guglielmelli and Mulford became estranged from Green . During the estrangement, Gug lielmelli execut ed a Will in June 2008 , devising her real property , then consisting of her home in Cherry Hill, to Mulford and leaving nothing to Green . Two months later, Guglielmelli
and Mulford moved into a home in Runnemede they purchased together as j oint tenants. In 2009, Guglielmelli , with the assistance of Mulford and a lawyer, sold the Cherry Hill house. Guglielmelli and Mulford reconciled with Green sometime in
2009. In 2010, Guglielmelli made a new Will. In the 2010 Will, Guglielmelli again left her real property to Mulford but divided the remainder of her assets equally between Mulford and Green. In December 2014, Guglielmelli , then eighty

- eight, was hospitalized. Mulford, who worked full
- time as a special education teacher, determin ed she could no longer care for her
mother at home . According to Mulford, her mother h ad become increasingly unable to care for herself , forgetting to turn off
the stove , for example, making Mulford fearful of leaving her3 A - 0375
- 17T1

alone. Accordingly, Mulford made arrangements for her mother to enter assisted living following her release from a rehabilitation facility upon her discharge from the hospital in January 2015. Mulford also engaged an attorney to advise her and Guglielmelli about Medicaid planning . In F ebruary, while in the assisted living facility, Guglielmelli executed a deed transferring her interest in the Runnemede home she shared with
Mulford to Mulford. Guglielmelli was unhappy in assisted living . In March, Green removed Guglielmelli from the facility without telling
Mulford and moved their mother into her home. Green also arranged for Guglielmelli to revoke the power of attorney to
Mulford and execut e a new power in favor of Green . Shortly thereafter, Guglielmelli , with Green's ass istance, hired a lawyer to demand Mulford produce accountings of both the estate
and the funds Mulford had managed pursuant to the power of attorney. Mulford had never prepared an accounting for the estate and neither Guglielmelli nor Green had ever reque sted

one. Similarly, Mulford had never accounted to Guglielmelli in the seven years she handled her mother's finances following her
father's death. When Mulford failed to produce the requested accountings, Guglielmelli sued her, demanding she account. Mu lford hired4 A - 0375
- 17T1

counsel, filing an answer, a counterclaim against her mother for compensation for the care and personal services provided her for
seven years and damages for malicious prosecution, and a third

party complaint against Green alleging malicious prosecution and "undue influence." The Probate Part judge order ed Mulford to account. W ith
her counsel's assistance over the course of many months, Mulford laboriously produced two accountings, one for her father's estate and one spa nning the seven years she managed her mother's finances. Guglielmelli filed exceptions and the Probate Part judge cond ucted four full days of trial, hearing testimony from all the parties and Green's husband. After Guglielmelli concluded her case, M ulfor d moved to dismiss the complaint, which the judge granted. The judge put a detailed opinion on the record from the bench, recapping the testimony, her impressions of the witnesses and Guglielmelli's failing memory , and addressing each of Guglielmelli's se veral concerns about the accountings. The judge concluded Guglielmelli voluntarily executed th e deed transferring her fifty percent interest in the Runnemede
house she shared with Mulford to Mulford for Medicaid planning purposes, consistent with the testamentary intent Guglielmelli5 A - 0375
- 17T1

expressed in both her 2008 and 2010 Will s . Summarizing her findings, the judge concluded:

The bottom line is there haven't been any proofs provided to me that there was undue influence exercised on this lady by Donna Mulfo rd; that there is any deficiency in the accounting that can be rectified by accumulating specific vouchers, invoices, and receipts from the various providers. And I believe that the sale of the [Runnemede house] was appropriate because I think that Mrs. Guglielmelli, in the interest of Medicaid planning, and in being able to protect the interest in the house for her daughter, who that was her primary residence, signed a deed.
And I can't

— I just can't see where this case should continue, where it shoul d go any further. I think that the case is a sad case, like I said before. I think that Mrs. Guglielmelli has absolutely no idea what she started out with, nor did she care. She was happy to go along. . . . The judge dismissed all remaining claims and permitted
Mulford to file an application for fees , limited to the period following the last deposition, at which point the court
concluded " there was enough information provided to Ms. Green and Ms. Guglielmelli coupled with Ms. Guglielmelli 's inability
to recall much of what her estate and that of her husband even consisted of to lead to the conclusion that the litigation should have been terminated." Mulford sought $78,623.38 for that limited period. Considering the "very limited means" of6 A - 0375
- 17T1

all parties, the court awarded $20,000 "as a modest contribution" by G reen and Guglielmelli to Mulford, whose fees for the entire case were well in excess of $100,000. Guglielmelli appeals the dismissal of her accounting action , claiming the court erred in approving t he accountings and should have instead vacated the deed Guglielmelli was "tricked" into signing and ordered the Runnemede house sold and the proceeds divided. We reject those argument s as without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinio n. See R. 2:11
- 3(e)(1)(E). Final determinations of the trial court in a non

jury case are subject to a limited and well

- established scope of review: " we do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice[.]" In re Trust Created By Agreement Dated December 20, 1961, ex rel. Johnson , 194 N.J. 276, 28 4 (2008) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am. , 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Applying that standard provides us no basi s to disturb the judge's findings
here.7 A - 0375
- 17T1

Guglielmelli and Green also appeal the fee award, contending it was not per mitted pursuant to R. 4:42
- 9. We
agree. There is no provision in our statutes, rules or case law for the award of fees in an accounting action. See ibid . ; In re Estate of Vayda , 184 N.J. 115, 123 (2005). Nor can the fee award be justified as a litigation sanction as Green did not seek fees under the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A.
2A:15
- 59.1; R. 1:4
- 8, or attempt to comply with its requirements. See Toll Bros., Inc. v. Twp. of W. Windsor , 190
N.J . 61, 64 (2007) . Mulford did not prevail on any affirmative claim. Accordingly, we reverse the fee award. Dismissal of the complaint for an accounting is affirmed. The court's award of $20,000 in fees to Mulford from Guglielmelli and Green is reversed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part.