Court Opinion

ID: 9696049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:34:29.735381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.072784
License: Public Domain

William J. Brennan, Jr., J.
(dissenting in part). I agree that the funds are subject to escheat, but would go further and affirm the judgment in its entirety because I do not think that in the circumstances of this case the defendant is entitled to an allowance of counsel fees and costs. I see no reason for insisting that the question of such allowances under this statute should be determined exclusively by reference to Rule 3:54-7. I think, with Mr. Justice Iíei-ier and Mr. Justice Jacobs, that in this instance we should look to the statute to determine whether the Legislature has authorized the allowance of counsel fees and costs to the custodian of the escheated property. I incline to the reasoning of Mr. Justice Jacobs in Point II of his dissent in Slate v. Otis that if allowances to a custodian of the escheated property can in any case be governed by rule of court, as a matter of judicial restraint the Winberry [ Winberry v. Salisbury, 5 N. J. 240] doctrine should not be invoked to bar legislative action on the subject. I part from Justices PIeher and Jacobs, however, in their interpretation of the Escheat Act as omitting any provision for the payment of fees and costs to the custodian. I think such payments are expressly provided for by the provision direct*63ing the State Treasurer to pay, in addition to the allowances specifically mentioned, “such other fees and costs as the judgment shall direct.” N. J. S. 2A :37 — 21. But certainly the trial court could not properly make an allowance to this custodian whose aid to the State was merely responsive to the coercive force of a court order and whose primary effort was to sustain a claim that the property was its own, to which end it resisted at every step of the litigation the State’s effort to secure it. The statute plainly contemplates the payment of compensation only to a custodian whose participation in the case is purposed to further and not to frustrate the objective of the State’s suit.