11 A.3d 404
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiff appeals a trial court dismissal of his DV Act complaint, alleging harassment and stalking.
- Defendant lived with plaintiff and his family for about seven months, Oct 2008–Apr 2009, as a houseguest/bookkeeper for a renovation business.
- Plaintiff testified to two spying incidents: peering through a bathroom window and a later bathroom observation, and a hidden video device planted in plaintiff's truck.
- Plaintiff and defendant did not have a dating, familial, or sexual relationship; plaintiff asserted he was not gay and confronted defendant about spying.
- Trial court sua sponte ruled that a ‘household member’ requires permanent status and rejected DV Act jurisdiction; the court noted possible criminal remedies.
- Court reversed and remanded for merits, holding defendant fit within ‘household member’ under the Act due to cohabitation-like relationship for seven months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant qualifies as a household member under the Act | Bryant-like cohabitation supports household member status | Household member requires a permanent, non-transient status | Yes; jurisdiction exists; defendant is a household member |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Burnett, 264 N.J. Super. 222 (App.Div. 1993) (cohabitation-like living together supports household member status under the Act)
- Hamilton v. Ali, 350 N.J. Super. 479 (Ch.Div. 2001) (dormitory suitemate can be a household member; relationship considerations matter)
- Smith v. Moore, 298 N.J. Super. 121 (App.Div. 1997) (lack of jurisdiction for harassment claims between unrelated individuals in non-cohabiting setting)
- Jutchenko v. Jutchenko, 283 N.J. Super. 17 (App.Div. 1995) (brothers not living together for long are not covered by the Act)