Background

• Dr. Araya appeals a Civil Protection Order requiring him to vacate the New Jersey Property, which he contends is his sole and separate property, thus lacking authority for the order.
• After a four-day hearing, the trial court granted cross-CPOs in favor of both parties, including a vacate order for Dr. Araya.
• The New Jersey Property was titled solely in Dr. Araya’s name but had been the family dwelling where the couple lived and cared for their children.
• D.C. Code § 16-1005(c)(4) permits a protective order directing the respondent to vacate a dwelling that is marital property or jointly owned or occupied.
• The Intrafamily Offenses Act is to be liberally construed to counter safety concerns, allowing safety to trump property rights as a factor.
• The court adopts a broad construction holding that the term “marital property” includes the family dwelling unit, independent of formal title or equitable distribution status, for purposes of a vacate order.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Cruz-Foster v. Foster, 597 A.2d 927 (D.C. 1991) (intrafamily offenses must be liberally construed for remedial purpose)
• Robinson v. Robinson, 886 A.2d 78 (D.C. 2005) (safety concerns may trump property rights; order's scope varies with totality of circumstances)
• Powell v. Powell, 547 A.2d 973 (D.C. 1988) (statutory history informing protections for occupancy and vacate orders)
• Sanders v. Sanders, 602 A.2d 663 (D.C. 1992) (premarital home may be sole and separate property under equity concepts)
• Hemily v. Hemily, 403 A.2d 1139 (D.C. 1979) (definition of marital property as related to §16-910(b))
• Yeldell v. Yeldell, 551 A.2d 832 (D.C. 1988) (contribution concepts to property interests; equity considerations)