Justice James Pagones
Executrix Melley moved for an order resettling an Oct. 5, 2012 court order. A referee was appointed, and an order of reference directed petitioners and respondents to each remit $2,500 to the referee as security for his fee. The order also provided that a final decision as to the fees, and the parties responsible for same, would be indicated in a subsequent order. The parties appeared before the referee to place a plenary settlement on the record, and the referee's fee was fixed at nearly $19,000. The estate was directed to pay the entire amount. Melley argued the order inadvertently deviated from the parties' understanding at the time they settled the matter by directing the estate to pay the entire fee. Petitioners opposed arguing there was no unintentional oversight when the court made a final decision and there should be no allocation of the referee's fees. The order of reference clearly provided a formula by which the parties would be responsible for paying the referee's fee, which was reaffirmed when the parties appeared to place their full settlement on the record. The court stated the Oct. 5 order unintentionally diverged from the order of reference directive, finding the motion to resettle was the appropriate procedural vehicle to correct such inadvertent oversight.
