N.T.B. v. D.D.B.
121 A.3d 910
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2015Background
- Married spouses lived in a jointly owned home with an eight-year-old; plaintiff (husband) had previously obtained a TRO against defendant (wife) before marriage.
- Parties were sleeping in separate bedrooms and divorce had been filed when incidents occurred in March 2014.
- On March 30, husband poured juice on, unplugged, and threw wife’s bedroom speakers into the toilet.
- On March 31 husband broke down wife’s locked bedroom door; wife struck him in the face while leaving.
- Both parties filed cross-complaints seeking final restraining orders (FROs); bench trial resulted in FRO granted for husband and denied for wife. Appellate court reviewed whether (1) damage to marital property can be “property of another” for criminal mischief and (2) whether wife’s strike supported an FRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breaking the bedroom door constituted criminal mischief (damage to "property of another") | Door and home were marital property; statute does not prohibit damaging one’s own property | Wife: husband damaged her property interest in the home and thus committed criminal mischief | Held: Breaking the door damaged wife’s undivided interest as a tenant by the entirety; qualifies as property of another and may be predicate domestic violence act. |
| Whether destruction of the speakers constituted criminal mischief | Speakers were marital property purchased during marriage | Wife: speakers belonged to her (kept in her bedroom); husband lacked privilege to damage them | Held: Trial judge made insufficient factual findings about ownership; remanded for findings on who held a tangible proprietary interest in the speakers. |
| Whether husband’s acts supported harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c)) | — | Wife: course of alarming conduct (two separate incidents) amounted to harassment | Held: Although two acts can constitute a course of conduct, wife failed to prove husband acted with intent to harass; harassment claim denied. |
| Whether wife’s strike constituted an act of domestic violence (simple assault) and justified FRO | Husband: wife struck him and FRO needed to prevent further abuse | Wife: struck to get past him or to flee — possible self-defense or defense of child | Held: Trial judge found the strike occurred but failed to address potential self-defense/defense-of-child justification; grant of FRO reversed and remanded (different judge) for appropriate findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (articulates two-step FRO analysis: predicate act then necessity of protection)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard of appellate review for bench trial findings)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (harassment requires intent to harass; course of conduct standard explained)
- Capital Fin. Co. of Del. Valley, Inc. v. Asterbadi, 389 N.J. Super. 219 (Ch. Div. 2006) (tenancy by the entirety creation and consequences)
- Vander Weert v. Vander Weert, 304 N.J. Super. 339 (App. Div. 1997) (tenancy by entirety converts to tenancy in common on divorce)