The Supreme Court is seeking comments on its 2024-2026 reports of the Supreme Court Civil Practice and Tax Court committees by March 27. A public hearing on these reports will be held on May 20. The Supreme Court will act on the recommendations following the close of the comment period with any rule amendments being effective Sept. 1. The New Jersey State Bar Association is reviewing these recommendations.
The Tax Court Committee made one recommendation to implement a rule change to clarify the time permitted to file responsive pleadings and how motions affect the time to answer. Another amendment was made to correct punctuation in R. 8:8-3. The Standard Interrogatories Subcommittee considered non-rule amendments include refining the language of standard interrogatories to ensure clarity, consistency, and practical utility for both taxpayers and municipalities of local property tax complaints relative to forms for valuation, exemption and farmland cases. The subcommittee also recommended drafting standard forms for several additional case types to enhance Tax Court practice, including local property tax appeals initiated by a taxing district, add/omitted valuation cases, small claims commercial cases, farmland rollback, and equalization matters. A full copy of the Tax Court Committee report may be found here.
The bulk of the recommendations of the Supreme Court Civil Practice Committee report are within Parts IV and VI, though there were notable rules in Part I and II. The committee recommended an amendment to R. 1:6-2(d) to allow oral argument in motions for reconsideration at the judge’s discretion instead of as of right and to prohibit two-sided motion papers under R. 1:6-4. Under R. 2:5-3(c) and R. 2:6-1(a), the committee recommended doing away with the transcript delivery certification requirement in appeals.
The amendments to the Part IV rules include conforming rules to new legislation. Several rules were proposed for amendment regarding publication in an online news service under N.J.S.A. 35:3-1.
Regarding guardianships, several amendments were proposed to R. 4:86 which addresses various provisions for appointing guardians of incapacitated individuals. Among the more specific amendments include R 4:86-7, which would conform the rules to N.J.S.A. 3B:12B-17 and -18 in connection with guardianship transfers in and out of state. Proposed amendments to R. 4:86-2(b)(2) and -10(b) allow a physician’s assistant or a registered nurse to provide an affidavit or certification in connection with the guardianship under certain circumstances. And amendments to R. 4:86-4(a)(5), -6(d) and –7(a) incorporate language in court forms from National Guardianship Association’s Bill of Rights. Other proposed amendments would conform language to conform with N.J.S.A. 3B:12-25 regarding the appointment of guardians (R. 4:86-6(c)); clarify procedures for appointment of a substitute, successor or co-guardian (R. 4:86-7(d)); require the use of forms from the Administrative Office of the Courts for guardianships involving the Division of Developmental Disabilities (R. 4:86-10(a)); clarify different types of fiduciaries and their respective responsibilities (i.e. pendente lite temporary guardians or guardians ad litem) (R. 4:86-2 and -4); and additional amendments ensuring compliance with Judiciary policy on accessible and inclusive communications.
Other notable rule amendments include a proposal to clarify that a judge may limit the frequency or extent of discovery on parties and nonparties for the reasons listed on the rule (R. 4:10-2). An amendment to R. 4:48-1 clarifies that a party may appeal after acceptance of a payment of final judgment if (1) the party made their intention to appeal known beforehand; and (2) prevailing on appeal would not impact the final judgment except to potentially increase it.
Amendments to Part VI of the Court Rules reflect a comprehensive review of the rules governing the Special Civil Part to clarify practice in the Special Civil Part and provide uniformity throughout the rules, without substantively changing, rewriting or reorganizing them.
The committee declined to adopt amendments suggested by the NJSBA regarding withdrawal of representation and attorney’s fees. The NJSBA recommended this proposal to streamline the process for an attorney to withdraw from representation and raise compensation issues in ongoing matters. The NJSBA encouraged adopting the proposal as part of the Association’s Putting Lawyers First Task Force recommendations to give attorneys an opportunity to withdraw from representation when the client refuses to pay or even when the client agrees to end representation.
The committee held for consideration some proposed amendments including an amendment to R. 1:21-7 relating to contingent fees. Trial lawyers submitted a proposal to amend the rule to calculate personal injury contingency fees as a straight one-third of the gross recovery without the need for court intervention. The committee noted the complexity of considering such a proposal and formed a subcommittee to study and make recommendations on the issue.
Comments may be submitted in writing via email at [email protected] or by mail to:
Acting Administrative Director Judge Michael J. Blee
Administrative Office of the Courts
Attn: Rules Comments
Hughes Justice Complex; P.O. Box 037
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0037