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-000096-15.

Jehl & Fabian, attorneys for appellants

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, 

plaintiff Geraldine M. Guglielmelli, and two daughters, 

defendant/third-party plaintiff Donna Mulford and third-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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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." 

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.

September 6, 2018
2 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, 

Guglielmelli executed 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 joint 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, determined she could no longer care for her 

mother at home. According to Mulford, her mother had become 

increasingly unable to care for herself, forgetting to turn off 

the stove, for example, making Mulford fearful of leaving her 
3 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 February, 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 execute a new power in favor of Green. Shortly 

thereafter, Guglielmelli, with Green's assistance, 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 requested 

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. Mulford hired 
4 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 thirdparty complaint against Green alleging malicious prosecution and 

"undue influence." 

The Probate Part judge ordered Mulford to account. With

her counsel's assistance over the course of many months, Mulford 

laboriously produced two accountings, one for her father's 

estate and one spanning the seven years she managed her mother's 

finances. Guglielmelli filed exceptions and the Probate Part 

judge conducted four full days of trial, hearing testimony from 

all the parties and Green's husband. After Guglielmelli 

concluded her case, Mulford 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 several concerns about the 

accountings. 

The judge concluded Guglielmelli voluntarily executed the 

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 Guglielmelli 
5 A-0375-17T1

expressed in both her 2008 and 2010 Wills. 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 Mulford; 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 should 

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" of 
6 A-0375-17T1

all parties, the court awarded $20,000 "as a modest

contribution" by Green 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 the 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 arguments as without sufficient merit to 

warrant discussion in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E). Final determinations of the trial court in a nonjury 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, 284 (2008) (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors 

Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)). Applying that 

standard provides us no basis to disturb the judge's findings 

here.
7 A-0375-17T1

Guglielmelli and Green also appeal the fee award, 

contending it was not permitted 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.