In the Matter of the Estate of Rhoda crane/in the Matter of the Trust of Rhoda Crane

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In the Matter of the Estate of Rhoda crane/in the Matter of the Trust of Rhoda Crane

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided July 15, 2026·No. A-2457-24/A-2799-24·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NOS. A-2457-24 A-2799-24

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RHODA CRANE, deceased. __________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE TRUST OF RHODA CRANE, deceased. __________________________

Argued April 16, 2026 – Decided July 15, 2026

Before Judges Bishop-Thompson and Puglisi.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen County, Docket Nos. P- 000708-24 and P-000709-24.

Justin A. Jacobs argued the cause for appellant Michael E. Crane (Law Advocates LLC, attorneys; Justin A. Jacobs, on the briefs).

Kathleen M. Lee argued the cause for respondent David M. Repetto (Harwood Lloyd, LLP, attorneys; Kathleen M. Lee, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM In these consolidated matters, Michael E. Crane 1 appeals from the January

24, 2025 orders denying his orders to show cause and dismissing his complaint,

and the March 7, 2025 orders denying his motion for reconsideration. For the

reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

I.

We write primarily for the parties, who are fully familiar with the

procedural history of the underlying matters. A brief summary provides context

for our decision.

Rhoda Crane died testate in July 2020, with her estate to be paid to the

trustees of her trust. At the time of her death, Rhoda lived in a property held in

the trust, with Rhoda and her sister Joyce Crane as co-trustees. When Joyce

died in October 2020, she was survived by her two children, Michael and

Jacqueline Crane, as equal beneficiaries of her estate. Litigation between

Michael and Jacqueline then ensued in both New York and New Jersey, wherein

each contested ownership of Rhoda's various real property and alleged

mismanagement of her personal property. As a result of the litigation, Judge

James J. DeLuca appointed David M. Repetto, an attorney with the firm of

1 Because certain individuals involved in the litigation share a common surname, we refer to them by their first names. No disrespect is intended.

A-2457-24 2 Harwood Lloyd, LLP, as substitute trustee of Rhoda's trust and administrator

C.T.A.2 of Rhoda's estate.

After the court accepted Rhoda's will to probate, Jacqueline moved for

default against Michael. On February 4, 2022, Judge DeLuca entered final

judgment by default. While the details of the judgment are largely not germane

to the issues on appeal, Judge DeLuca found Michael responsible for attorneys'

fees and costs, including those incurred by the estate on behalf of Repetto, and

those incurred by Jacqueline in her efforts to preserve the estate and trust. 3

In December 2022, Judge DeLuca retired from the bench and in February

2023, began employment as a mediator at Harwood Lloyd. In November 2024,

Michael filed a letter seeking leave to file a motion to remove Repetto as

administrator and trustee and disqualify Harwood Lloyd. In December 2024, he

filed separate orders to show cause and verified complaints in each matter. In

2 C.T.A. is short for "cum testamento annexo" (Latin for "with the will attached"), which indicates the administrator was appointed by a court because the named executor became unavailable. See In re Est. of Gerhardt, 336 N.J. Super. 157, 166 (Ch. Div. 2000). 3 Although the judgment did not indicate the amount of attorneys' fees payable to Repetto, those incurred by Jacqueline totaled close to $690,000. In our prior decision involving this litigation, we reversed the trial court's order denying Michael's order to show cause demanding Repetto provide an accounting, which would include the attorneys' fees incurred by the estate. In re Est. of Rhoda Crane, No. A-3739-22 (App. Div. Nov. 15, 2024) (slip op. at 13, 15). A-2457-24 3 them, Michael alleged Judge DeLuca was disqualified from involvement in the

estate and trust litigation, and that conflict flowed to the entire firm of Harwood

Lloyd, including Repetto, because the firm failed to adopt any written screening

procedure for Judge DeLuca. Michael sought Repetto's removal as

administrator of the estate and trustee of the trust, appointment of himself in

Repetto's stead, sanctions, and other relief. The trial court denied the

preliminary restraints and entered the order to show cause.

Repetto, represented by Harwood Lloyd, answered the complaints and

opposed the orders to show cause. Repetto's certification in opposition

recounted Michael's "utter lack of cooperation, lack of adherence to orders of

the court, and complete disregard for court rules and procedures." (emphasis

omitted). He alleged Michael misappropriated assets and funds from the estate

and noted Michael owed over $2.4 million to the estate. Regarding Judge

DeLuca, Repetto certified:

[M]yself and my colleagues have not discussed the Crane matters with Judge DeLuca. Further, Judge DeLuca has no involvement in any matters involving Michael Crane or the Estate. Due to the size of Harwood Lloyd and the limited number of individuals involved in handling the Crane matters, there was no need for a formal written procedure. All those involved are aware that Judge DeLuca cannot be included in discussions on this matter, and he has not been so included.

A-2457-24 4 After considering argument, the trial court issued an oral decision denying

the orders to show cause and dismissing the complaints. The court examined

RPC 1.12, which prohibits a former judge from representing anyone in

connection with a matter in which the former judge participated personally and

substantially. The court noted disqualification flows to all the lawyers in the

firm unless the former judge is timely screened from participation in the matter

and written notice is provided to the parties and tribunal to ensure compliance.

In rejecting Michael's interpretation, the court found RPC 1.12 did not

apply to an individual appointed as a fiduciary, such as Repetto. It noted Judge

DeLuca appointed Repetto to serve as administrator and trustee, and neither

Repetto nor Judge DeLuca was "representing any of the parties in this

litigation." Although the court was persuaded the Rule did not apply, it noted

Harwood Lloyd had "gone to great lengths to screen Judge DeLuca from any

participation in this matter." Because the complaints failed to state a claim, the

court denied the orders to show cause and dismissed them.

Michael timely moved for reconsideration, contending Repetto "abused

the trust and confidence reposed in him," and therefore should be removed

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 3B:14-21. The court denied the motion, finding Michael

failed to demonstrate the prior order was based on a palpably incorrect or

A-2457-24 5 irrational basis or that it did not appreciate the significance of competent

probative evidence.

On appeal, Michael argues the trial court erred because: it did not evaluate

whether Harwood Lloyd should have been disqualified; disqualification was

automatic and not curable through screening because Judge DeLuca had

obtained Michael's confidential information in camera; and even if the

disqualification could have been cured through screening, Harwood Lloyd did

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI