Returned Mail Meant Law Firm Fell Short of Notice Requirement in Fee Suit
In a decision that offers some clarity on what is required of fee-collecting…
October 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM
5 minute read
In a decision that offers some clarity on what is required of fee-collecting lawyers, the Appellate Division has said that a law firm's mailing of pre-suit collection letters to a recipient's last known address isn't enough to satisfy the notice requirement if it's learned that the mailings never got there.
Because New Jersey firm Helmer, Conley & Kasselman had “actual knowledge that defendant did not have notice of her right to request fee arbitration before it filed suit, we conclude Helmer did not satisfy Rule 1:20A-6, requiring dismissal of the complaint,” Appellate Division Judges Carmen Messano and Karen Suter said Wednesday.
The panel was careful to note that it didn't intend to expand the rule's requirements.
“The focus of our decision is narrow. We are not incorporating a general due diligence requirement into the Rule,” which “is an issue more appropriately left for the Supreme Court's consideration,” Suter wrote for the panel. “We simply hold that where counsel has actual knowledge that the client or responsible third party did not receive the pre-action notice because both mailings were returned, the presumption of receipt has been rebutted.”
If mailings are returned, “counsel then should make a genuine effort to obtain a current address and resend the notice,” Suter continued. “To do otherwise undercuts the purpose of the Rule because it pays lip service to the client's 'right' to request arbitration without giving any meaningful opportunity to the client to exercise it.”
According to Wednesday's decision in Helmer, Conley & Kasselman v. Montalvo, which was unpublished, Helmer Conley, with offices in Haddon Heights and elsewhere throughout the state, represented Vincent Montalvo beginning in 2007, when Vincent's sister-in-law, Barbara Montalvo, signed a guarantee promising to pay legal fees. The court didn't reveal the nature of the representation. After Vincent failed to pay the outstanding fees, the firm in March 2013 sent a pre-action notice by regular and certified mail to Barbara's last known address in Mays Landing. Both mailings were returned as not deliverable at that address, and unable to be forwarded.
Helmer Conley filed suit in January 2014 seeking $26,769, and attempted to serve the complaint on Barbara at a different address in Mays Landing, though default judgment ultimately was entered. Barbara claimed she only learned of the suit when her wages were garnished, and moved to vacate default, which was granted.
A mediator determined that Helmer Conley failed to give her sufficient notice under Rule 1:20A-6, according to the decision. The rule requires the pre-action notice to notify the recipient of the availability of fee arbitration, and requires that the notice “be sent … to the last known address” of the client or the third party responsible for payment of the legal fees.
Both Helmer Conley and Barbara moved for summary judgment. The firm contended that it substantially complied with the rule by sending the pre-action notice to Barbara's last known address in Mays Landing.
Barbara was pro se in the case, and wrote the summary judgment brief herself, though she hired an attorney, Gary Marek, to argue the motion before the trial court, Marek told the Law Journal.
Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Joseph Marczyk granted Montalvo's summary judgment motion. According to an excerpt included in the Appellate Division's decision, Marczyk said Helmer Conley's position on substantial compliance with the rule “'would defeat the purpose of the rule if attorneys only had to send to the last known address without regard to whether or not plaintiff knows it's the wrong address or finds out.'”
Helmer Conley appealed, contending that the judge below failed to apply the rule's plain meaning—that sending notices by regular and certified mail to the recipient's last known address is all that's required.
The Appellate Division disagreed. “The problem is that both of the mailings were returned to Helmer with notations that defendant did not receive either one,” Suter wrote.
The recognized presumption that mail properly addressed, stamped and posted was received by the intended recipient “has been rebutted here because both the regular and certified mail were returned to Helmer,” Suter said.
The court said the rule's purpose is to allow clients a short, 30-day window to avoid fee litigation in favor of fee arbitration, and noted that “the sanction for having not given this opportunity is severe, namely the dismissal of the complaint.”
The panel changed the dismissal from with prejudice to without prejudice, because the merits of the case were never reached. Helmer Conley contended that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, but the court declined to address that point, saying it's unclear from the record whether that issue was raised below.
Marek, a Mount Laurel solo, handled appellate briefing and argument. He said he expects that Helmer Conley would now be considered beyond the statute of limitations, but said any effort to refile the fee suit would be opposed.
Rebecca McDowell of the Saldutti Law Group in Cherry Hill, who argued for Helmer Conley, declined to comment. A call to Helmer Conley was not answered.
Marek said the decision is an instructive one, because returned mail resulting from a pre-action notice is likely a regular occurrence.
He noted that oral arguments at the Appellate Division turned academic, including a specific discussion of what defines a “last known address.”
“Maybe the rule needs to be changed,” Marek said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllElection Law Spending Is on the Rise, but Big Firms Have Reasons Not to Cash In
6 minute readTroutman Pepper Accused of Inattentive Case Management in $59M Malpractice Suit
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Bar’s Proposed Anti-Discrimination, Harassment Conduct Rule Sees More Pushback
- 2California's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
- 3Justin Baldoni Sues Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for $400M in New Step in 'It Ends With Us' Fight
- 4Top Leadership Changes Coming for NJ Attorney General's Office
- 5SCOTUSBlog Co-Founder Tom Goldstein Misused Law Firm Funds, According to Federal Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250