NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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 NO. A-3531-15T4 LEMAD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent/ Cross-Appellant, v. IRENE HONACHEFSKY, JIMMY AGUIRRE and AUDREY BETH AGUIRRE, Defendants, and WILLIAM B. HONACHEFSKY and BONITA E. HONACHEFSKY, Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Respondents. ______________________________________ IRENE HONACHEFSKY, Third-Party Plaintiffs, and WILLIAM B. HONACHEFSKY and BONITA E. HONACHEFSKY, Third-Party Plaintiffs- Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. CHARLES M. URBAN in his individual capacity, and DANIEL W. SOLES, Third-Party Defendants. ______________________________________ Submitted October 17, 2017 – Decided November 14, 2017 Before Judges Leone and Mawla. On appeal from State of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Morris County, Docket No. C-000030- 08. William B. Honachefsky and Bonita E. Honachefsky, appellants/cross-respondents pro se. Martin & Tune, LLC, attorneys for respondent/cross-appellant (Daniel B. Tune, of counsel and on the brief; William E. Reutelhuber, on the briefs). PER CURIAM This matter concerns a dispute over an easement between the plaintiff Lemad Corporation (Lemad) and defendants William and Bonita Honachefsky (the Honachefskys), which the parties have been disputing since 2004. In 2012, after numerous pretrial motions and lengthy discovery the parties settled their dispute. Thereafter, the Honachefskys appealed from the order denying their motion to vacate the settlement agreement, which we affirmed in Lemad Corp. v. Honachesfky, No. A-5582-12 (App. Div. October 24, 2014). The terms of the settlement required the Honachefskys to establish the new easement. When they failed to do so, Lemad 2 A-3531-15T4 filed a motion to enforce litigant's rights pursuant to Rule 1:10- 3. The Honachefskys filed a cross-motion to declare the settlement agreement null and void. Both parties also sought counsel fees. The trial court issued orders on March 11, 2016 and May 10, 2016, holding the Honachefskys in violation of litigant's rights and awarding Lemad counsel fees, respectively. The Honachefskys appeal from both orders, and Lemad cross-appeals from the order granting counsel fees. We affirm. I. The following facts are taken from the record. Lemad purchased lot 6 on block 68 in Clinton Township in 2004. At that time, Irene Honachefsky owned a single-family home on lot 4; the Honachefskys owned a single-family home on lot 4.01; and Jimmy and Audrey Beth Aguirre owned a single-family home on lot 5. The Honachefskys' and Aguirres' properties are only accessible by way of a ten foot wide easement, bearing a road called Echo Lane, which runs from those properties through lot 6 to the public street. The easement was deeded to Irene Honachefsky and her late husband in 1956. Lemad purchased lot 6 subject to the easement by lots 3, 4, 4.01, and 5 for ingress and egress. After purchasing lot 6, Lemad obtained a survey of the property and discovered Echo Lane had branched out beyond the original deeded description. As a result, Lemad suggested an 3 ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals