|
The Supreme Court of New Jersey entered its annual omnibus rule amendment order on July 23, 2026, with the amendments taking effect September 1, 2026. The order amends 22 rules governing general application, appellate, civil, and Tax Court practice, along with two appendices and RPCs 1.8 and 1.13. Of those, two changes touch on appellate practice.
New R. 4:48-1(b): Appeals After Accepting Payment of a Judgment
R. 4:48-1, which governs warrants of satisfaction, gains a new paragraph (b) under the amendments, codifying a standard previously adopted by the Court. In Brehme v. Irwin, 259 N.J. 505 (2025), a unanimous Court adopted a two-part test, held that the plaintiff satisfied neither prong, affirmed the dismissal of her appeal as moot, and referred the opinion to the Civil Practice Committee to consider clarifying R. 4:48-1. The Committee’s amendment tracks the Court’s ruling almost verbatim and specifically provides that a party may appeal after accepting payment of a final judgment only if the party can show: (1) that it made an intention to appeal known before accepting payment and before executing a warrant to satisfy the judgment; and (2) that prevailing on the appellate issue would not affect the final judgment other than to potentially increase the judgment amount.
While the new Rule requires that a party “make an intention to appeal known,” it does not say to whom; Brehme makes clear that the intention must be made known to the party paying the judgment. The Brehme plaintiff wrote only to the trial judge that she was “attempting to file an appeal.” In addition to the notice being too late, the Court commented that “[f]inal payment and execution of a warrant to satisfy judgment without the other party’s knowledge that a plaintiff plans to appeal does not promote finality, efficiency, or fairness.” (emphasis added).
Counsel for a judgment creditor considering an appeal should thus be sure to clearly state the intention to appeal in writing to opposing counsel, before accepting payment, and before signing a warrant of satisfaction.
Transcript Delivery Certification Eliminated
The second rule amendment concerning appellate practice is a minor one: R. 2:5-3(e) no longer requires a transcript delivery certification. The amendment deletes the certification outright. Notification of the transcript’s delivery by the person preparing it is now sufficient.
As a result of this change, R. 2:6-1(a)(1) is likewise amended. Former subparagraph (G), which required the certification to be included in the appellant’s appendix, is deleted, and former subparagraphs (H) and (I) are renumbered (G) and (H). For example, the requirement to include unpublished opinions in the appendix now appears at R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(G). Practitioners should update their brief and appendix templates, forms, and internal checklists that cite to the former paragraphs within the Rules.
|
