Nagel Rice, LLP v. Starkey, Kelly, Kenneally, Cunningham & Turnbach

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Docket Number: A-1081-24
• Decision Date: 12 November 2025
• Citation: Nagel Rice, LLP v. Starkey, Kelly, Kenneally, Cunningham & Turnbach, A-1081-24 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Nov 12, 2025)
• Parties: NAGEL RICE, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STARKEY, KELLY, KENNEALLY, CUNNINGHAM & TURNBACH, Defendant-Respondent.

1

NAGEL RICE, LLP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STARKEY, KELLY, KENNEALLY, CUNNINGHAM & TURNBACH, Defendant-Respondent.

No. A-1081-24

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

November 12, 2025

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.

Argued October 28, 2025

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Ocean County, Docket No. C-000139-24.

Bruce H. Nagel argued the cause for appellant (Nagel Rice, LLP attorneys; Bruce H. Nagel, of counsel and on the briefs).

Aileen F. Droughton argued the cause for respondent (Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, attorneys; Aileen F. Droughton of counsel and on the brief).

Before Judges Gilson and Perez Friscia.

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Nagel Rice, LLP, appeals from the November 8, 2024 order granting defendant Starkey, Kelly, Kenneally, Cunningham &Turnbach's Rule 4:6-2(e) motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Having reviewed the record, parties' arguments, and applicable law, we affirm.

I.

We summarize the facts derived from the record, focusing on the complaint and documents referenced in the pleading, which are largely undisputed. In reviewing the facts asserted in plaintiff's complaint we accord "every reasonable inference of fact." Guzman v. M. Teixeira Int'l Inc., 476 N.J.Super. 64, 67 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting Major v. Maguire, 224 N.J. 1, 26 (2016)).

Plaintiff began representing a non-party to this action, Benjamin Ringel (Ringel), sometime before 2020. Ringel had been named a defendant in multiple Ocean County Chancery Division lawsuits, including claims filed by his sister, Chana Ringel and a commercial lender, RCG, LV Debt IV Non-Reit Assets Holdings, LLC (RCG). Defendant and multiple other law firms also represented Ringel in chancery actions.

In a Chancery Division lawsuit involving RCG, a judgment was entered in 2016 against Ringel for over $22,000,000. RCG later assigned the judgment to JDWC, LLC (JDWC), resulting in JDWC's intervention in the litigation. On October 25, 2019, the court entered an order pursuant to N.J.S.A. 42:2C-43 imposing a lien against Ringel's interests in real estate properties until the judgment to JDWC was satisfied. In June 2020, JDWC filed a separate collection action against Ringel seeking the remaining $5,759,218 owed on the judgment and temporary restraints against Ringel's interests. The JDWC action was consolidated with Chana Ringel's action. The court ordered the law firm representing JDWC to hold in escrow Ringel's received funds from various commercial properties. Plaintiff later represented Ringel in a chancery action involving JDWC and Chana Ringel, which had settled in 2020 with the parties "arbitrating certain claims."

On March 10, 2021, the court ordered defendant to serve as an escrow agent (escrow order) in the JDWC action. Defendant was to escrow Ringel's "50% of the escrowed funds held by" JDWC's law firm. The court ordered that defendant

will release the funds to the educational institution(s) for payment of outstanding tuition or directly to Ringel's legal representatives [plaintiff], Sills Cummis &Gross PC . . .[,] and [defendant] for payment of legal fees upon receipt of documentation verifying the fees or tuition due. Ringel retains the right to request the release of additional funds from the JDWC Escrow in an amount up to 50% of the JDWC Escrow for future bona fide educational expenses incurred by the beneficiaries of the Trust or additional outstanding legal fees with the remaining 50% to be simultaneously disbursed to JDWC. [Defendant] will provide JDWC with copies of all invoices received and payments made to said law firms and educational institutions.

Defendant began overseeing Ringel's portion of funds the same month.

On September 15, 2021, Ringel emailed Kevin Starkey, Esq., a member of defendant, instructing, "Each month you receive a check for $15,000 please send the amount received to [plaintiff] as payment for legal fees going forward. "The same day Starkey responded by email to Ringel and copied Robert H. Solomon, Esq., and Bruce H. Nagel, Esq., members of plaintiff. Starkey stated, "I need a monthly invoice from [Nagel] because I have to keep documentation under the [escrow] [o]rder that the expenditure is for legal fees or for your children's tuition and healthcare, I don't need a detailed bill, just something each month I can have for my file." On September 20, Nagel emailed Starkey inquiring about the escrow balance and stating, "We are to get this now."

On October 20, Nagel emailed Starkey asserting that Ringel had "agreed that we get all monthly payments and I have not gotten a check or a reply. If I do not hear from you by Friday, I will file suit to compel the payments." On October 28, Starkey confirmed $30,000 would be sent to plaintiff, representing two months of escrow payments. On November 2, Solomon emailed Starkey confirming receipt of the check and indicated, "As you know, [Ringel] has agreed that [plaintiff] is to get the full amount of all monthly payments. On a going forward basis, please send us a check for the full amount of payments you receive."

In January 2022, Starkey sent a payment of $14,700. On February 1 Solomon emailed Starkey again stating, "As you know, [Ringel] has agreed that [plaintiff] is to get the full amount of all monthly payments. "Thereafter, at Ringel's direction, Starkey dispersed escrowed funds to "others[,] including lawyers."

On June 1, Nagel emailed Starkey stating, "Confirming our discussion, you or [Ringel] must pay our firm the $18,000 that was sent to [another attorney], and agree that all escrow funds will be paid to our firm per the prior agreement." Starkey responded on the same day stating, "I confirm that you have requested that all future escrow funds be paid to you and your firm going forward. Currently there is approximately $50.00 in the account." Starkey further asserted, "I do not want to be put into the middle of a fee dispute between you and [Ringel], so if you and [Ringel] cannot resolve this issue, I will have to apply to the [c]ourt for a motion to be relieved as counsel." On June 2, Nagel wrote Starkey referencing Ringel's September 15, 2021 email, asserting that Starkey had confirmed by email that he would pay plaintiff, and directing that Starkey "not disburse any monies." Nagel and Solomon had sent multiple other emails asserting plaintiff's entitlement to the funds.

In October 2022, Chana Ringel and JDWC filed an order to show cause, requiring defendant to release escrowed funds covering Ringel's owed portion of the arbitrator's fee and asserting the arbitrator would not release a decision without payment.^[1] On November 18, the court heard arguments on the motion. Plaintiff argued that, during the arbitration between JDWC, Chana Ringel, and Ringel, it had unsuccessfully "moved at least three times to be relieved" as counsel because it was not getting paid. Plaintiff objected to defendant paying any arbitrator fees from the escrowed funds. Plaintiff argued it represented Ringel as an "unwilling participant." Further, plaintiff asserted entitlement to all Ringel's escrowed funds held by defendant because an agreement was allegedly entered with Ringel and Starkey, as evidenced "in [the] series of emails."

During the argument regarding the release of funds to the arbitrator, Starkey represented to the court that he had abided by the escrow order and only released escrowed funds that Ringel had authorized pursuant to the order. Starkey asserted he "did not agree" that the funds would go to plaintiff and added that he did not think it was "within [his] authority to make an agreement as to where those funds would go." Further, Starkey relayed that any purported agreement would be contrary to the court's order because the order authorized only Ringel to direct distributions. Nagel admitted before the court that Ringel had "discretion as to certain areas he could use his share of the funds in escrow," but argued Ringel elected to "pay our firm." The court ordered payment to the arbitrator from the escrowed funds held by defendant because Ringel had the right to distribute "funds collected and escrowed . . . for certain specific purposes," including "legal fees," and that payment to the arbitrator falls within "legal fees."

In February 2023, Ringel requested defendant issue a second payment to the arbitrator from the escrowed funds. Plaintiff objected via email asserting, "[A]nyone [that] seeks to take those funds . . . may be liable for tortious interference." On February 7, Chana Ringel moved for an order authorizing defendant to make the second payment to the arbitrator from the escrowed funds.

Plaintiff again objected. On February 15, defendant moved to be relieved as Ringel's counsel and as the escrow agent. Ringel certified he had not entered into an agreement for plaintiff to receive all the escrowed funds. He also noted he had paid plaintiff "over $600,000."

On March 3, the court heard arguments on the motions and ordered defendant to pay the arbitrator. The court granted defendant's motion to withdraw as counsel and modified the escrow order, providing that the "[e]scrow [wa]s transferred to Bruce Nagel, Esq.['s] [f]irm, subject to the same conditions." Thereafter, plaintiff moved to modify the March 3 order and strike paragraph three, which directed JDWC to cease releasing Ringel's portion of the escrowed funds, effectively pausing any distribution.

JDWC cross-moved for the court to reconsider plaintiff's appointment as the escrow agent stating that it "is likely...