D.C.A. VS. M.J.A.(L-1026-15, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED)
A-3744-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 2, 2017Background
- Former spouses; defendant obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) after an incident in which plaintiff drove behind defendant after supervised child visitation.
- Family Part held a multi-day hearing: judge found defendant credible and that plaintiff’s driving would have alarmed her, but concluded defendant failed to prove required elements of stalking and harassment for a final restraining order (FRO) and therefore denied the FRO and dissolved the TRO effects; the TRO itself had temporarily barred plaintiff from possessing a weapon.
- Plaintiff then filed a civil suit alleging malicious prosecution, malicious use of process, and abuse/malicious use of process based on defendant’s PDVA action.
- Trial court granted defendant summary judgment on all tort claims and limited plaintiff’s discovery as oppressive; defendant later dismissed her counterclaim subject to reinstatement on remand.
- Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment (and the discovery ruling); appellate court affirmed summary judgment and deemed the discovery order moot because no remand was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malicious prosecution claim lies for PDVA action | PDVA action was malicious prosecution causing harm | PDVA action is not a criminal prosecution; malicious prosecution unavailable | Court: Dismissed — malicious prosecution doctrine inapplicable to PDVA actions |
| Whether plaintiff can prove malicious use of civil process (lack of probable cause) | Defendant lacked probable cause to commence/continue PDVA action | Defendant had probable cause based on facts known at the time (past abuse, driving behind, odd headlights, custody context) | Court: Dismissed — probable cause existed as a matter of law based on totality of circumstances |
| Whether plaintiff can prove malicious abuse of process (ulterior purpose/ further acts) | TRO caused economic harm (lost overtime); this shows ulterior purpose | TRO largely mirrored divorce decree; no evidence TRO was obtained to coerce economic or custody advantage | Court: Dismissed — no evidence of ulterior purpose or post-issuance misuse of process |
| Whether discovery order required review on appeal | Plaintiff challenged trial court’s restrictions as oppressive | Defendant maintained discovery was properly narrowed | Court: Not reached (moot) because no remand; discovery ruling not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62 (court cautions in permitting malicious-prosecution/abuse-of-process claims; distinguishes PDVA context)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (framework for assessing complainant's perspective in harassment/annoyance analysis)
- Brunson v. Affinity Fed. Credit Union, 199 N.J. 381 (summary judgment and malicious-use-of-process standards)
- Lind v. Schmid, 67 N.J. 255 (plaintiff must prove absence of probable cause to sustain malicious-process claims)
- Earl v. Winne, 14 N.J. 119 (definition and elements of abuse of process)