VICTORY IN THE SUPREME COURT!
In a hotly-contested appeal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded the New Jersey
Supreme Court to affirm a divided appeals court ruling vacating a jury
verdict on the ground that the trial court had improperly forced upon
the defendant an affirmative defense that the defendant, in fact, did
not want to argue to the jury.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES FORCED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in concluding that
there existed genuine issues of fact regarding whether the parties reached
a settlement agreement, requiring vacation of an order enforcing the settlement
agreement and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES TRIAL COURT ORDER IMPOSING SETTLEMENT TERMS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SETTLEMENT
Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reverse
part of a trial court order imposing settlement terms upon the plaintiff
to which she had not agreed. The plaintiff had asserted harassment and
discrimination claims against her employer. A purported settlement was
reached and memorialized in a one-page document signed by the plaintiff.
The defendant, however, moved to compel the plaintiff to sign a 14-page
"settlement agreement" containing several terms not reflected
in the one-page memorandum that plaintiff had signed. The trial court
compelled the plaintiff to execute the 14-page document. The appeals court
reversed, however, agreeing with Hegge & Confusione that the plaintiff
could not be compelled to sign a document containing terms that exceeded
those to which plaintiff had actually agreed.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE HELPS PRESERVE $1.3 MILLION VERDICT FOR INJURED PLAINTIFF
Hegge & Confusione helped persuade a New Jersey appeals court to affirm
a $1.3 million verdict obtained by a woman severely injured in a commercial
parking lot. The defendant appealed the verdict, arguing that the jury
instructions were improper and that the defendant was precluded from asserting
certain defenses. Hegge & Confusione helped persuade the appeals court
to reject the defendant's claims of error and affirm the verdict for
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO VACATE ORDER COMPELLING TURNOVER OF BANK FUNDS
Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a lower court
order compelling turnover of several thousand dollars held in a client's
bank account on the ground that the proofs presented to the lower court
showed that a portion of the funds were not subject to seizure. The appeals
court ordered remand for reconsideration of the issue of which portion
of the seized funds were subject to turnover.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES COURT TO REINSTATE APPEAL PREVIOUSLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION BY PRIOR APPELLATE LAWYER
Hegge & Confusione persuaded a New Jersey appeals court to reinstate
the appeal of a plaintiff which the court had dismissed months before
for prior counsel's failure to file a brief and appendix. Despite
the passage of time and prior dismissal, Hegge & Confusione persuaded
the appeals court that the plaintiff's appeal was meritorious and
that the prior dismissal, solely the fault of prior counsel, should not
be visited upon the party. Following the court's reinstatement of
the appeal, Hegge & Confusione filed a Brief and Appendix on the plaintiff's
behalf arguing for relief on the merits.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PARTNERS WITH OUT-OF-STATE COUNSEL IN SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT RESULTING IN FAVORABLE SETTLE
Hegge & Confusione partnered with a Texas law firm in the appeal of
an order approving a class action lawsuit and a large award of attorneys'
fees that, the appellant contended, exceeded the reasonable value of attorney
services provided. After filing of briefs in support of the appeal, the
parties reached a favorable settlement resolving the attorneys' fee
issue contested on appeal.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE PERSUADES APPELLATE COURT TO REVERSE JUDGMENT AGAINST CLIENT ARISING FROM ALLEGED BREACH OF COMMERCIAL LEASE
Hegge & Confusione persuaded an appellate panel to vacate a bench trial
judgment assessing damages against the client for alleged breach of a
commercial lease and partnership agreement. The appeals panel agreed that
the trial judge erred in failing to recognize the client's right to
abatement of the lease payments and establishment of breach of partnership
duties by the defendant.
HEGGE & CONFUSIONE REVERSES LAW DIVISION ORDER
The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing a Law
Division order denying the client’s motion to enforce litigant's
rights and for counsel fees, relating to defendants' failure to comply
with the terms of the parties' settlement agreement.
THE APPEALS COURT AGREES WITH HEGGE & CONFUSIONE
The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in vacating the alimony
termination order and remanding for a plenary hearing, “which shall
particularly focus upon the critical disputed factual issue of the frequency
of the alleged cohabitation.”
SUCCESS IN REVERSING THE DISMISSAL OF COUNTS ONE AND THREE
The appeals court agreed with Hegge & Confusione in reversing the dismissal
of counts one and three of the plaintiff’s complaint and reinstating
the client’s claims for conspiracy and tortious interference with
contract and prospective economic advantage.
Victory in the Supreme Court
Hegge & Confusione has persuaded the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse
lower court rulings limiting Hegge & Confusione’s client to
equitable distribution of assets earned only during the parties’
brief, 14-month marriage. Hegge & Confusione persuaded the Supreme
Court that the family court, as a court of equity, was required to evaluate
the client’s equitable share of a $2.25 million deferred compensation
bonus paid to the ex-husband in light of not just the formal marriage
period but, also, the parties’ eight years of living and raising
their daughter together preceding the formal marriage. Applying principles
of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, “Aucoin-Thieme is entitled
to a percentage of the portion of the closing bonus that Thieme earned
during the parties' cohabitation," Justice Patterson said in
a unanimous ruling for the Court.