Doctrine of Laches Prevents Enforcement of Litigants’ Rights Claim
In re Estate of Semple, Docket No. A-3415-21 (N.J. App. Div. Jul. 31, 2024)
This case dealt with the doctrine of laches.
In 2000, Marie Semple executed the Marie Semple Qualified Personal Residence Trust (“QPRT”), an irrevocable trust that then owned residential property. The QPRT directed the trustee, on Marie’s death, to distribute the principal of the trust to Marie’s children: Harry; Kathryn; Roger; and plaintiff Oliver (“plaintiff”).
Marie died in 2012.
Plaintiff and Harry sued Roger and Kathryn, individually and in Kathryn’s capacities as executor of the estate and trustee of the QPRT and another trust. They alleged Kathryn had engaged in a series of improper actions, including refusing to sell the residential property in accordance with the QPRT.
In a March 11, 2015 consent order, the parties affirmed that they wanted to sell the property and gave Kathryn the authority to execute documents required to complete the sale. Plaintiff and Harry agreed to withdraw any objection they had to the sale of the property. The consent order contained related provisions as to the furnishing documents to the parties regarding the sale.
The property sale closed on March 31, 2015. From that point forward, the parties and their counsel engaged in a series of emails related to the production of the documents pertaining to the sale. During that process, one of the attorneys passed away and his law firm dissolved.
On March 24, 2022, plaintiff moved “to enforce litigants’ rights and declaratory judgment.” He sought an order enforcing certain provisions of the March 11, 2015 consent order. Plaintiff addressed his notice of motion to one of the parties’ attorneys, whom he identified as “defendant.”
On April 28, 2022, the trial court entered an order with an accompanying legal analysis, denying plaintiff’s motion. The court found (1) the case had been dismissed in June 2016, (2) one of the law firms no longer existed, (3) one of the lawyers worked for a different law firm and had represented she did not have the closing documents, and (4) plaintiff’s lawyer or plaintiff pro se could have sought “a post judgment motion for violation of litigant’s rights” in 2015 after the alleged violation of the consent order. The court held plaintiff’s motion was barred by the doctrine of laches.
Plaintiff appealed.
The Appellate Division summarized the laches doctrine:
“Whether laches should be applied depends upon the facts of the particular case and is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Fox v. Millman, 210 N.J. 401, 418 (2012). “The doctrine of laches applies when there is neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done.” Zilberberg v. Bd. of Trs., Tchrs.’ Pension & Annuity Fund, 468 N.J. Super. 504, 513 (App. Div. 2021). “[L]aches is the failure to assert a right within a reasonable time resulting in prejudice to the opposing side . . . . The key factors are the length of delay, reasons for delay, and change of position by either party during the delay.” Clarke v. Clarke ex rel. Costine, 359 N.J. Super. 562, 570 (App. Div. 2003). “Laches may only be enforced when the delaying party had sufficient opportunity to assert the right in the proper forum and the prejudiced party acted in good faith believing that the right had been abandoned.” Knorr v. Smeal, 178 N.J. 169, 181 (2003). The time requirements for laches to apply “are not fixed but are characteristically flexible.” Lavin v. Bd. of Educ. of Hackensack, 90 N.J. 145, 151 (1982).
Id. at *7-8.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court, finding that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion based the doctrine of laches: “By the time plaintiff filed this motion, the case had been dismissed for nearly six years, the closing attorney had died, his firm had been dissolved for nearly three years, and none of the other attorneys contacted had a copy of the file. The prejudice is palpable, and plaintiffs delay is unexplained.” Id. at *10.