A trial judge acted within her discretion in allowing payment of attorney fees from an estate, a state appeals court said, but it also pressed for more details on how the amounts to be paid were reached.

The Appellate Division's decision came in two consolidated appeals pertaining to trust beneficiaries from the estate of Keith O'Malley challenging orders granting relief to interested parties and counsel fees.

While approving the settlement, the panel sought more details on the attorney fees on remand, a combined award of roughly $614,000 to Connell Foley, Borteck & Czapek and Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis.

"We affirm as to the substantive relief. We also affirm the counsel fee awards, except that we remand for the Probate Part judge to make more detailed findings regarding amounts," said the March 10 per curiam opinion by Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez and Karen Suter.

But, the panel said in Matter of Estate of Keith R. O'Malley, "we have no explanation of the basis for specific numbers awarded."

"Basically, the judge just gave each firm the amount it requested," said the opinion. "That may ultimately be correct, but requires more explicit analysis."

It was on appeal from the Monmouth County Superior Court, Chancery Division.

Lauren Bercik of Lauren Bercik Law in Shrewsbury, the administrator of the estate of Keith O'Malley appointed by the court, said in a call that she was unable to comment on the case.

Robert Borteck of Borteck & Czapek in Florham Park represented Barbara O'Malley, Dennis O'Malley, Jessica Shuman, Dylan Shuman, Luke Shuman, and Brooke Shuman, the surviving family members of Keith O'Malley referred to in the case.

Anthony La Porta of Connell Foley in Roseland represented Michele O'Malley, the mother of Keith's youngest child named as a minor child beneficiary.

Borteck and La Porta were not available for comment.

Brian Selvin of Greenbaum Rowe's Roseland office represented Michael Feinberg, the testamentary trustee. Selvin could not be reached for comment.

According to the decision, Keith O'Malley was 32 when he died on June 1, 2014, after which a $5 million trust was created for his minor child. Funds were divided equally between two trusts: a discretionary trust designated for the child and a family residual trust to benefit surviving extended family members such as the mother, father, sister, and the sister's children.

O'Malley had disinherited a second child, which generated litigation that ultimately settled, the court noted.

The minor child, whose interests were represented by her mother, engaged in post-death litigation regarding ongoing support payable by the estate. The beneficiaries objected to the child support settlement that was approved by the trial court judge, claiming it was improper and excessive since Michele O'Malley's budget wasn't considered.

As for fees, the trial judge, unnamed in the March 10 opinion, noted the complexity of the 39-page will. She said that after reviewing the time records of each firm, the lawyers' time was well spent and the fees reasonable during the yearslong litigation, according to the opinion. The judge said the fees could be paid from the estate's assets.

One appeal challenged an order awarding $373,117 in counsel fees to Michele O'Malley's attorneys at Connell Foley.

Cross-appeals challenged the counsel fee award of $146,772 to Borteck & Czapek.

Also challenged was the judge's award of $94,389 to be paid to Greenbaum Rowe for representing Feinberg.

The beneficiaries raised three points on appeal: the trial court abused its discretion in allowing fees and costs to Connell Foley to come from assets of the estate; the trial court erred in awarding legal fees to Greenbaum from the estate rather from the trust for which the firms' client served as trustee; and the trial court abused its discretion because the fees to Connell Foley were unreasonable. Michele O'Malley raised one point on cross-appeal, that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees. Feinberg, the testamentary trustee, raised a similar point, that the awarding of attorney fees to Bortek was inappropriate because the costs incurred for his services were to benefit the surviving family members, not the estate, according to the decision.

"The Probate Part judge did not abuse her discretion in approving the settlement agreement," said the panel's March 10 opinion, and "the decision to award or deny attorney's fees rests within the sound discretion of the trial court."

The opinion said each party sought to maximize estate funds and acted in good faith.

"The child's mother engaged in litigation in order to protect her child's interests. The beneficiaries engaged in litigation in order to protect the residuary estate. The testamentary trustee engaged in litigation in order to both protect the child, the focus of decedent's estate plan, while maintaining trust funds at maximal level with an eye to the future," said the panel.

The panel said the attorney fees, calculated by using the "lodestar" method of number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, were reasonable, as were the hours billed, and they should be paid from estate funds.

But the panel said the trial court judge only reviewed the records from each attorney and firm before concluding "each firm expended its time properly."

"That does not suffice," said the panel. "Unfortunately, pursuant to Rendine, a court must review the number of hours and determine whether or not they are reasonable. It is not clear from the record if such review occurred here.

"Hence, we agree with the parties that the actual amount of fees requires a more detailed examination and discussion, and remand for that purpose."