SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4915-14T2

BOROUGH OF WEST WILDWOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

HERBERT C. FREDERICK, PAUL J.

BALDINI, ESQ., and PAUL J. 

BALDINI, P.A., and ON NOTICE

TO THE FOLLOWING INDISPENSABLE

PARTIES: DOROTHY TOMLIN, THE 

COMMITTEE TO RECALL HERBERT C.

FREDERICK, JACQUELINE FERENTZ,

WILLIAM M. NULL and ROBERT W.

FELTWELL,

Defendants/Third-party

Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.

MUNICIPAL EXCESS LIABILITY

JOINT INSURANCE FUND and

SCIBAL ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendants.

____________________________________

Submitted October 6, 2016 – Decided

Before Judges Lihotz and O'Connor.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

July 14, 2017
2 A-4915-14T2

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Cape May County, Docket 

No. C-0057-13.

Jacobs & Barbone, P.A., attorneys for 

appellant (Louis M. Barbone and YooNieh Ahn, 

on the brief).

Goldenberg, Mackler, Sayegh, Mintz, Pfeffer, 

Bonchi & Gill, attorneys for respondent 

Herbert C. Frederick (Mark Pfeffer, on the 

brief).

Paul J. Baldini, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Borough of West Wildwood (municipality) appeals 

from a June 10, 2015 General Equity Part order denying its and 

granting defendants Herbert C. Frederick's and Paul J. 

Baldini's, Esq., motions for summary judgment.1 We affirm. 

We briefly recount the salient facts. The municipality is 

organized under the Walsh Act commission form of government, 

N.J.S.A. 40:70-1 to 40:76-27. In May 2008, Frederick was 

elected as one of the municipality's three commissioners. 

During his four-year term as commissioner, he also served as 

mayor. 

Soon after Frederick was elected, a complaint was filed 

challenging the election results. Frederick and another 

 

1 A provision in the order also granted summary judgment 

dismissal to third-party defendants Municipal Excess Liability 

Joint Insurance Fund and Scibal Associates, Inc. This provision 

in the order was not appealed.
3 A-4915-14T2

commissioner, who also won the election, retained Baldini to 

defend them. That matter was withdrawn by the plaintiffs soon 

after the trial commenced in June 2008. Around this time, 

Baldini was appointed as the municipality's attorney. 

In November 2009, the municipal clerk, defendant Dorothy 

Tomlin, determined there was a sufficient number of signatures 

on recall petitions to recall Frederick's election. Tomlin 

scheduled a recall election for early 2010. In December 2009, 

Frederick filed a three-count complaint against Tomlin, the 

municipality, and others. In count one, Frederick primarily 

alleged Tomlin committed multiple violations of the Uniform 

Recall Election Law, N.J.S.A. 19:27A-1 to -18, in her capacity 

as a recall election official. See N.J.S.A. 19:27A-3. 

These alleged violations included, but were not limited to, 

improperly certifying filed notices of intention to recall 

Frederick; validating recall petitions that contained the 

signatures of unregistered and nonresident voters; failing to 

timely serve Frederick with copies of the certified filed 

petitions; and affording Frederick only five days to challenge 

Tomlin's certification. Among other things, Frederick sought 

nullification of the recall petitions, cancellation of the 

recall election, compensatory damages, and counsel fees. 
4 A-4915-14T2

In count two of his complaint, Frederick alleged defendants 

violated his civil rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, 

N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 to -2, specifically, N.J.S.A. 10:6-2(c). In 

count three, he contended defendants engaged in a civil 

conspiracy. Before trial, count one was bifurcated from the 

other counts. In February 2010, Frederick prevailed at trial on 

count one, and the court entered judgment nullifying the recall 

petitions and cancelling the recall election. The court 

reserved decision on the remaining relief Frederick sought in 

count one until the remaining counts were adjudicated. 

In December 2010, the entire matter settled before a trial 

commenced on counts two and three. Third-party defendant 

Municipal Excess Liability Joint Insurance Fund (MELJIF), which 

provided insurance coverage for the municipality, negotiated a 

settlement with Frederick through his attorney. In exchange for 

MELJIF paying $30,000 to his attorney for his counsel fees, 

Frederick agreed to dismiss his entire complaint with prejudice.2

MELJIF also agreed to pay $25,000 toward Tomlin's counsel fees. 

Significantly, in addition, MELJIF agreed it would not seek 

any contribution from the municipality toward the settlement, 

 

2 Although we could not locate in the record the precise amount

of legal fees Frederick incurred as a result of litigating the 

first count, at the time the court rendered its decision on this 

count in February 2010, his attorney sent an email to MELJIF's 

agent, third-party defendant Scibal Associates, Inc., stating 

Frederick's attorney's fees were "approaching $30K."
5 A-4915-14T2

including having to make any copayment or contribution from its 

self-insured reserve. In other words, after Frederick prevailed 

on the first count alleging wrongful acts on the part of its 

municipal clerk, a count Frederick had little choice but to 

prosecute expeditiously, the municipality was spared from having 

to contribute any of its own funds to resolve the entire matter. 

In May 2012, MELJIF inadvertently billed the municipality 

for a portion of the amount MELJIF paid to settle the matter. 

By September 2012, MELJIF discovered its error and retracted the 

bill. In November 2013, the municipality filed the within 

matter against Frederick, Baldini, and Paul J. Baldini, P.A., 

seeking various relief. Among other things, the municipality 

sought: (1) the rescission and nullification of the settlement 

agreement on the ground the board of commissioners never 

reviewed or ratified the agreement; (2) a declaration Frederick 

and Baldini engaged in official misconduct; (3) a declaration 

the settlement agreement was a nullity because it was entered in 

violation of the law and public policy; and (4) Frederick and 

Baldini be compelled to return the settlement monies paid on 

their behalf. Significantly, although the municipality sought 

the agreement be rescinded as to Frederick and Baldini, it did 

not similarly request the agreement be rescinded as to Tomlin. 
6 A-4915-14T2

After the close of discovery, plaintiff's motion for 

summary judgment was denied and defendants' cross-motion for 

summary judgment dismissal was granted. For the reasons set 

forth in his forty-six page written opinion, Judge Raymond A. 

Batten either denied or determined he could not, as a matter of 

law, rule upon the relief plaintiff sought in its complaint, and 

dismissed it with prejudice. 

On appeal, plaintiff contends the trial court erred because 

it failed to find the agreement a nullity at inception and, 

further, that the agreement and payments made pursuant to the 

agreement were tainted by "blatant" acts of official misconduct 

committed by Frederick and Baldini. We reject these arguments, 

and affirm for substantially the same reasons as set forth in 

Judge Batten's thorough and well-reasoned written opinion. See

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A). 

Affirmed.