BOROUGH OF AVALON VS. THE MARINA AT AVALON ANCHORAGE, Â LLC(C-8-16, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4817-15T2

R.R. (plaintiff) and B.R. (defendant) divorced in 2005; they share two children and have a long, contentious post-divorce history including custody litigation.
Plaintiff had a prior FRO against defendant entered in 2004 and voluntarily dismissed it in 2011.
In 2015 plaintiff obtained a TRO and sought a final restraining order (FRO) in Morris County alleging harassment based on three letters (sent by defendant’s attorney) and a telephone call from defendant.
A multi-day bench trial was held; the judge reviewed the letters, listened to the recorded phone call, and heard testimony and exhibits from both sides.
The Family Part found the letters were sent by defendant’s counsel for legitimate purposes, the recorded call contained no threats or harassing language, plaintiff’s testimony lacked credibility on key points, and plaintiff failed to prove harassment or the need for an FRO.
The trial court denied the FRO, dismissed the TRO, and lifted restraints; the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the findings were supported by substantial, credible evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conduct constituted harassment under the PDVA	R.R. argued letters and a phone call amounted to harassment warranting an FRO	B.R. argued the letters were sent by counsel for legitimate purposes and the call had no harassing intent	Court held plaintiff failed to prove predicate acts of harassment by a preponderance of credible evidence
Whether the trial court misapplied the law by not considering prior domestic-violence history	R.R. argued the prior 2004 FRO and history should have weighed in favor of an FRO	B.R. (and court) noted the prior FRO was remote and had been voluntarily dismissed in 2011, reducing present threat evidence	Court considered history but found it did not make 2015 conduct harassing or establish need for protection
Credibility/findings: exclusion or non-acceptance of certain witnesses/testimony	R.R. asserted the court improperly discounted two witnesses and her testimony	B.R. maintained credibility findings were supported by the record and recordings	Court affirmed credibility determinations as supported by substantial, credible evidence
Whether the trial judge abused discretion by contacting the Monmouth County judge	R.R. claimed improper ex parte contact influenced decision	B.R. and trial court said contact was limited to venue/jurisdictional discussion; no objection was raised at trial	Court found no record evidence that the contact improperly influenced the ruling and affirmed

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (trial court findings are binding on appeal when supported by substantial credible evidence)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (standard for appellate deference to trial factfinding)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two-step PDVA FRO analysis: predicate act then need for protection)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (importance of relationship history in domestic violence context; intent inference guidance)
E.M.B. v. R.F.B., 419 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 2011) (harassment requires specific intent to harass)
State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441 (App. Div. 1995) (intent requirement for harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4)
Hoffman v. State, 149 N.J. 564 (N.J. 1997) (use of common sense and experience to infer intent)
S.D. v. M.J.R., 415 N.J. Super. 417 (App. Div. 2010) (standard for disturbing Family Part factual findings)