T.M.S. VS. W.C.P. (FV-01-684-07, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4900-15T2

Background

Plaintiff obtained a TRO after an October 31, 2006 domestic violence incident; defendant admitted the act and an FRO was entered on November 29, 2006.
Defendant moved under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d) and Carfagno to vacate the FRO; first motion was denied (May 13, 2008), second Carfagno application was granted after plaintiff did not appear and the court found she had been properly served.
With the FRO vacated, defendant sought return of forfeited weapons; at the weapons-forfeiture proceeding, plaintiff (through counsel) later claimed she had not been served with the Carfagno dismissal order.
The judge presiding over the weapons matter sua sponte vacated the dismissal order and reinstated the FRO, then ordered a new Carfagno hearing before a different judge.
The subsequent Carfagno hearing denied defendant’s request to vacate the reinstated FRO; motions for reconsideration were denied and defendant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a court may reinstate an FRO sua sponte in an ancillary proceeding	Plaintiff argued the court could correct an erroneous dismissal to protect the victim (implicit)	Reinstatement must be by motion in the underlying DV matter (Rule 4:50-1); court lacks jurisdiction to sua sponte revive a final dismissal	Trial court abused its discretion; sua sponte reinstatement was improper—applications to reopen must be filed in the underlying DV matter by formal motion
Proper application of Carfagno factors in deciding to dissolve FRO	Plaintiff opposed dissolution and did not appear; argued service defect justified reinstatement	Defendant argued Carfagno factors favored dismissal (sobriety, counseling, lack of contact, no other orders)	Court did not reach merits of second judge’s Carfagno analysis because initial reinstatement was vacated; trial court should have required formal motion and afforded defendant due process
Whether one judge must handle DV matters from start to finish	Plaintiff implicitly favored continuity for victim protection	Defendant claimed prejudice from having two different judges hear related matters	One-judge-one-case is a recommendation, not a mandate; statute requires same judge or a complete record—here no showing the second judge lacked the record, so multiple judges are permissible
Double jeopardy bar to multiple Carfagno reviews	Plaintiff’s position not asserted	Defendant argued repeated Carfagno reviews violated double jeopardy	Double jeopardy inapplicable—the PDVA proceeding is civil, distinct from criminal prosecution

Key Cases Cited

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (discusses standard of review and deference to trial court fact findings) (N.J. 1998)
Carfagno v. Carfagno, 288 N.J. Super. 424 (establishes eleven-factor test for vacating an FRO) (Ch. Div. 1995)
T.M. v. J.C., 348 N.J. Super. 101 (discusses jurisdictional effect of dismissal of domestic violence complaints) (App. Div.)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (due process limits on converting allegations and notice requirements in DV proceedings) (N.J. 2011)
State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475 (explains double jeopardy protections and scope) (N.J. 1999)
Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600 (endorses factor-analysis approach of Carfagno) (App. Div.)