N.B. v. S.K.
435 N.J. Super. 298
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2014Background
- Married in 1993; PDVA petitions filed; plaintiff obtained PRO for push down stairs incident; defendant obtained FRO in 2002.
- 2003 PSA settled divorce; vacation of FROs and mutual restraints were included; communications restricted to email with children context and monitored by parenting facilitator.
- Defendant violated matrimonial restraints by numerous calls and emails; 2006 order limited communications to a specific email address for children.
- 2009 domestic violence action dismissed despite court recognizing violations of 2006 order and “offensive” messages.
- 2012 domestic violence action filed; plaintiff sought to admit prior orders and violations to contextualize new harassment; trial court limited evidence and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can violation of matrimonial restraints support a DV claim? | Past restraints evidence shows harassment motive and alarm. | Violations of civil restraints are not per se DV acts. | Yes, within context, past violations support harassment finding for DV. |
| Whether exclusion of past restraint violations as evidence was correct? | Past violations explain why messages alarmed plaintiff. | Evidence is improper to prove DV act; limited relevance. | Error to exclude; relevance for context supports admission. |
| Whether the 2012 involuntary dismissal was proper? | Court erred by not considering past violations and context. | No statutory basis to classify restraint violations as DV acts; lack of proof ofDV. | Reversed; remanded for new trial. |
| Was relief from the 2003 order vacating the 2002 FRO properly denied? | Relief appropriate due to ongoing harassment and nine-year delay in seeking protection. | Relief denied because movant waited too long; no expedient relief. | Affirmed denial; no reasonable expedition shown; still possible but not here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (PDVA is remedial but not expansive beyond statute)
- Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47 (App.Div. 1995) (context matters in harassment determinations)
- Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App.Div. 1995) (harassment in dissolution context requires totality of circumstances)
- State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (N.J. 1997) (purpose to harass inferred from context)
- J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. Super. 387 (App.Div. 1998) (surrounding circumstances necessary to establish harassment)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (fact-sensitive harassment standard; context matters)
- Orner v. Liu, 419 N.J. Super. 431 (App.Div. 2011) (timeliness and reasonableness in relief-from-order standards)
- Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (N.J. 1969) (proof standard on motions; mechanical approach)