T.M.S. v. W.C.P., 163 A.3d 929

Plaintiff obtained a TRO (Oct 31, 2006) and defendant admitted the act; an FRO was entered (Nov 29, 2006).
Defendant moved under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d) (Carfagno factors) to vacate the FRO; first motion denied (May 13, 2008); a later unopposed Carfagno application was granted after plaintiff failed to appear and the FRO was vacated (Dec 8, 2014).
At a subsequent weapons-forfeiture proceeding, the prosecutor questioned whether plaintiff had been properly served with the Carfagno dismissal; plaintiff’s counsel then appeared and asserted lack of service.
The trial judge, sua sponte and in the ancillary weapons-forfeiture matter, vacated the dismissal and reinstated the FRO (Dec 15, 2015) and ordered a new Carfagno hearing; a different judge later denied defendant’s renewed Carfagno motion and reconsideration (Feb 22 and July 1, 2016).
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to reinstate an FRO sua sponte and should have required a Rule 4:50-1 motion, (2) Carfagno factors were misapplied, (3) single-judge assignment error, and (4) double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may sua sponte reinstate a dismissed FRO	Plaintiff argued service was defective and court should correct error	Defendant argued court lost jurisdiction after dismissal and plaintiff needed to file a Rule 4:50-1 motion to reopen	Court reversed: sua sponte reinstatement in ancillary matter was improper; reopening requires formal motion in the underlying DV matter
Whether Carfagno factors were correctly weighed	Plaintiff opposed vacation of FRO and asserted continued need for protection	Defendant argued Carfagno factors supported vacatur (sobriety, counseling, no contact, plaintiff not present)	Court did not decide merits of the later Carfagno ruling because reinstatement was improvident; vacated subsequent orders
Whether one judge must hear entire domestic violence matter	Plaintiff implicitly supported continuity for consistency/protection	Defendant argued prejudice from having different judges hear matters; cited one-judge/one-case best practice	Court declined to require single-judge rule; statutory requirement is same judge or access to complete record; no reversal on this ground
Whether Double Jeopardy bars repeated Carfagno reviews	Plaintiff maintained civil proceedings serve protective purpose, not criminal punishment	Defendant claimed double jeopardy because Carfagno review occurred twice	Court held Double Jeopardy inapplicable to civil PDVA proceedings; claim fails

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard of appellate review and deference to trial court findings)
Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (Ch. Div. 1995) (sets eleven-factor test for vacating an FRO)
T.M. v. J.C., 348 N.J. Super. 101 (App. Div. 2001) (dismissal of domestic violence complaint divests court of jurisdiction to enter FRO absent reopening)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (due process requirements in domestic violence proceedings)
State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475 (1999) (double jeopardy principles)
State v. Brown, 394 N.J. Super. 492 (App. Div. 2007) (PDVA complaints are civil, not criminal)
Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 1998) (endorsing factor-analysis approach from Carfagno)