Court Opinion

ID: 9696048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:34:29.731652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.072184
License: Public Domain

Jacobs, J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in the court’s determination that the property escheated to the State under the act but believe that the defendant is not entitled to the payment of counsel fee therefrom. My reasons supporting the denial of counsel fees to custodians in escheat cases generally are fully set forth in my dissenting opinion in the companion case of State v. Otis Elevator Co., 12 N. J. 1 (1953); the facts in the instant matter are more compelling than in the Otis case. Unlike the Otis case, the defendant here persisted in its claim to the property throughout the entire trial below and, indeed, in this court'. Its claim has now been rejected and the State’s right to the property as successor to the unknown employees has been sustained. It seems to me that whether the issue be determined under the Escheat Act or solely under Rule 3 :54r-7, the defendant has no just basis for seeking payment of counsel fee from the State’s property. Cf. State v. Otis Elevator Co., supra.
The majority suggest that the defendant ought be compensated on the assumption that the proceeding “entailed an exhaustive search and study of old records.” Under our court rules every defendant in every litigation may be called upon for records and testimony hearing on the plaintiff’s claims. See Rule 3 :16-1 et seq.; Bead Chain Manufacturing Co. v. Smith, 1 N. J. 118 (1948). Nevertheless, it is.now well recognized that, in the interests of sound judicial administration, he must generally bear his own counsel fees. See Janovsky v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 11 N. J. 1 (1952); In re Janssen Dairy Products Corp., 2 N. J. Super. 580, 589 (Law Div. 1949). Furthermore, under the *62majority’s determination the defendant was a trustee and as such was always obligated to maintain adequate records pending transfer of the trust property to the cestuis or to the State as their successor under the Escheat Act. The notion that a trustee who has denied the trust, has mingled the trust property with its own and used it without charge, and has apparently neglected to maintain records for ready examination by the cesluis or the State as their successor, should be compensated from the trust property for counsel fees incurred by it in the course of the proceeding by the State and its contest thereof, seems to lack support in authority or considerations of justice. See Knagenhjelm v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co., 43 R. I. 559, 114 A. 5, 9 (Sup. Ct. 1921).
I would affirm the judgment entered in the Chancery Division in its entirety.