N.B. v. S.K. ( 2014 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0898-12T4
A-0899-12T4
N.B.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
v. March 24, 2014
S.K., APPELLATE DIVISION
Defendant-Respondent.
______________________________________________________
Submitted March 4, 2014 – Decided March 24, 2014
Before Judges Fisher, Koblitz and O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Monmouth County, Docket No. FV-13-1306-02E
in A-0898-12 and Docket No. FV-13-1882-12 in
A-0899-12.
Drazin and Warshaw, attorneys for appellant
(Vincent L. Stripto, on the brief).
Theodore Sliwinski, attorney for respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FISHER, P.J.A.D.
These appeals require consideration of the not uncommon
circumstance, during settlement of a divorce action, of a
domestic violence victim's agreement to vacate a final
restraining order (FRO) entered pursuant to the Prevention of
Domestic Violence Act (the PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and
to replace the FRO with restraints in the divorce action (the
matrimonial restraints). Here, in 2012, after the matrimonial
restraints proved ineffectual for years, plaintiff N.B. filed a
domestic violence action and, upon that action's dismissal,
unsuccessfully moved for relief from a 2003 order that vacated
her 2002 FRO. We agree the trial judge erred in granting an
involuntary dismissal of plaintiff's 2012 domestic violence
action because he mistakenly failed to give sufficient
consideration to defendant S.K.'s past and present violations of
the matrimonial restraints and, therefore, reverse and remand
for a new trial. We affirm the denial of the motion to vacate
the 2003 order that vacated the 2002 FRO solely because
plaintiff failed to seek that relief within a reasonable period
of time, and we express no view of the merits of that argument
had relief been timely sought.
I
The parties were married in 1993. As the marriage
disintegrated, they filed actions pursuant to the PDVA.
Plaintiff obtained her FRO because defendant pushed her down a
flight of stairs. Defendant also obtained an FRO in 2002
against plaintiff; the factual basis for that order is not
revealed by the record on appeal.
2 A-0898-12T4
In 2003, while in the midst of a divorce trial, the parties
reached a settlement. Their property settlement agreement (PSA)
stipulated to the vacation of the FROs.1 The PSA also contains
the parties' mutual consent to being "enjoined and restrained
from harassing" the other and declared that all communications
between them "shall be by e-mail and shall be related to the
children only, except to the extent the communications are in
the presence of or otherwise monitored by the parenting
facilitator." A dual judgment of divorce, which incorporated
the PSA, was entered on April 14, 2003.2
Apparently, defendant violated the matrimonial restraints
at various times by placing numerous telephone calls to
plaintiff and by sending emails to every known email address for
plaintiff, including her place of employment. Consequently,
plaintiff moved for enforcement of the matrimonial restraints.
On October 20, 2006, the motion judge entered an order that
directed the parties to stop harassing and annoying each other;
defendant was further ordered to communicate with plaintiff "by
e-mail only, about the children only, and us[e] exclusively the
1
In a later proceeding, plaintiff testified she was "very
reluctant and very afraid of letting go" of the FRO but was
advised by her attorney at the time – not her current attorney –
that it was "absolutely the right thing to do."
2
The record on appeal does not specify the date the FROs were
vacated, but we assume that it occurred in 2003.
3 A-0898-12T4
e-mail address 'NxxxKxxxx@aol.com[,]'[3] except in the case of an
emergency."
In January 2009, plaintiff commenced a domestic violence
action, alleging defendant made harassing and annoying
communications. Plaintiff testified at the 2009 trial that
voice messages defendant left for her were "[a]ngry, abusive,
furious and just scary." The judge who presided over the 2009
trial recognized that defendant had violated the 2006 order;
indeed, defendant seems to have conceded that. And the judge
recognized that defendant left "offensive" messages. The judge,
however, found that defendant "c[a]me up to the line" but did
not "cross[] the line into domestic violence," and, therefore,
dismissed the action.4 The judge entered an order that not only
dismissed the action but repeated the terms of the 2006
matrimonial order and further declared that "[a]ny violation of
this directive shall allow the [d]efendant to seek the issuance
of another [r]estraining [o]rder."
II
That past is prologue to the matters now before us.
3
We have altered this address to protect plaintiff's privacy.
4
Although the order makes no mention, at that time plaintiff also
sought but was sub silentio denied the reinstatement of the 2002
FRO.
4 A-0898-12T4
Plaintiff filed a new domestic violence action on June 27,
2012, alleging that defendant made harassing communications
when, on June 24, 2012, he left four voice messages on a
telephone the prior orders had barred him from calling and that
he "called her almost every day." At trial, plaintiff sought to
provide testimony and evidence regarding the prior proceedings
and prior orders to give context and meaning to the more recent
communications. The trial judge5 largely prohibited this, as
revealed during the following colloquy:
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Stripto, I don't
know of any authority that provides that a
violation of any civil order is an act of
domestic violence.
MR. STRIPTO: Your Honor, it's not so much
that it's an [act] of domestic violence, it
goes, – we are dealing with an allegation of
harassment.
THE COURT: Okay. You are either going to
establish harassment or you're not based on
the allegations of [June] 24th. I ask you
move on again, to the allegations of the
24th. If that [does] not result in a final
restraining order, the fact that additional
civil restraints were entered, is of no
moment here.
And, when plaintiff's testimony – truncated by that ruling –
ended, the following additionally colloquy occurred:
THE COURT: . . . Plaintiff rests?
5
The trial judge had not presided over any of the prior matters.
5 A-0898-12T4
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: No, I have another
witness.
THE COURT: I want an offer of proof.
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: [S.K.], Judge, I want
to call the defendant.
THE COURT: No, no, you don't prove your case
by calling the defendant.
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Judge, there are
specific orders in this case –
THE COURT: Sir.
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: It is my burden –
THE COURT: I've made my ruling. Do[es]
[defendant] have a motion?
Defense counsel then moved for a "directed verdict,"
arguing plaintiff had asserted only that defendant had left
voice messages and "there has to be a communication."
Plaintiff's counsel responded by again arguing that prior court
orders barred defendant from calling that particular telephone
number,6 and that defendant's continued and intentional violation
6
In the 2009 domestic violence action, defendant testified and
asserted that he telephoned a prohibited number because he had
been unsuccessful in reaching the parties' two children – who
were then twelve and nine years old – when calling the
children's cellphones. Because the trial judge in the matter at
hand mistakenly refused to permit plaintiff to call defendant to
the witness stand, the record does not suggest defendant's
purpose in violating the matrimonial restraints. Because of the
particular stage at which this case was dismissed, we must
assume defendant acted with a purpose to harass plaintiff. See
R. 4:37-2(b).
6 A-0898-12T4
of those orders constituted harassment. In response to the
judge's questioning, plaintiff's counsel conceded there was no
case law to support the proposition that the violation of "civil
restraints" constitutes an act of domestic violence within the
meaning of the PDVA, but he argued that the conduct constituted
harassment. Plaintiff's counsel also sought relief from the
2003 order, which vacated the 2002 FRO, since only an FRO had
been effective in restraining defendant from attempting to
communicate with plaintiff.
The trial judge compared plaintiff's allegations with the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), which declares that "a person
commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to
harass another, he . . . [m]akes, or causes to be made, a
communication or communications anonymously or at extremely
inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any
other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm." The judge
recognized that the telephone calls were not made anonymously or
at inconvenient hours, and that – as plaintiff testified – the
messages did not contain "offensively coarse language."7 In
7
The judge observed that plaintiff's failure to preserve the
messages was "telling." To the extent this comment suggested
the trial judge's doubt about plaintiff's credibility, that
determination was inconsistent with Rule 4:37-2(b), which
governed the judge's examination of the facts at that stage.
The trial judge was required to assume – as do we – the truth of
(continued)
7 A-0898-12T4
considering the final phrase of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a), the judge
rejected plaintiff's argument that the June 24, 2012 messages –
when viewed in the context of all that preceded them – could be
viewed as "likely to cause annoyance or alarm." Specifically,
the judge reached this conclusion by relying on the fact that no
court had previously found a violation of a matrimonial
restraining order to be an act of domestic violence. An order
of dismissal was entered on July 16, 2012.
Following dismissal, plaintiff moved for relief from the
2003 order that vacated the 2002 FRO and, in the alternative,
for reconsideration of the dismissal of the domestic violence
action. The trial judge was no longer available, and the motion
was assigned to another judge (the motion judge),8 who declined
to reconsider and also concluded that to permit the
reinstatement of the FRO so many years later "would create havoc
in the courts." The order denying the motion was entered on
September 24, 2012.
(continued)
plaintiff's testimony and to afford her all legitimate
inferences. In short, the judicial function at this stage "is
quite a mechanical one"; a trial judge must not be concerned
"with the worth, nature or extent (beyond a scintilla) of the
evidence, but only with its existence, viewed most favorably to
the party opposing the motion." Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2,
5-6 (1969).
8
Like the trial judge, the motion judge had not presided over the
prior proceedings.
8 A-0898-12T4
Plaintiff appeals the orders of July 16 and September 24,
2012.9
III
In considering whether to grant an involuntary dismissal,
the trial judge was limited to considering whether, "upon the
facts and upon the law[,] the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief." R. 4:37-2(b). The trial judge's ruling on this
question, as well as his exclusion of evidence concerning
defendant's past violations of the matrimonial restraints,
turned – as does our review – on this question: what is the
significance in a domestic violence action of a defendant's
violation of a matrimonial restraining order?
In examining that question, the trial judge relied on the
absence of legal authority to support a ruling that a violation
of a matrimonial order can constitute an act of domestic
violence. To be sure, the judge was correct on that specific
point because the Legislature defined "domestic violence" only
by referring to a series of criminal statutes. See N.J.S.A.
2C:25-19(a). We agree that a domestic violence action cannot be
sustained absent proof of one of those specifically enumerated
9
The two trial court orders were separately appealed; we now
consolidate these appeals and decide them by this single
opinion.
9 A-0898-12T4
acts. Although the PDVA is to be liberally construed because it
is remedial in nature, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 400
(1998), and although the Legislature has expressed the PDVA's
intent "to assure the victims of domestic violence the maximum
protection from abuse the law can provide," N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18,
our courts are not free to expand the meaning of domestic
violence beyond the contours so clearly delineated by the
Legislature.
To put this discussion in perspective, however, we observe
that plaintiff did not argue in the trial court that she had a
right to an FRO because defendant violated the matrimonial
restraints contained in the PSA or in later orders. To the
contrary, plaintiff alleged that defendant engaged in an act, or
acts, of harassment by leaving five voice messages10 on a
telephone he was ordered not to call. And, as evidence of her
claim that these messages were "alarm[ing] or seriously
annoy[ing]," and made with the purpose to harass, N.J.S.A.
2C:33-4(c), plaintiff sought admission of the prior orders and
evidence of prior violations of those orders as a means of
demonstrating how alarming or annoying these telephone calls
were to her. We agree with plaintiff that this evidence was
10
Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that defendant left four
voice messages, but testified about five messages. That
difference has no bearing on our disposition of these appeals.
10 A-0898-12T4
relevant to whether defendant engaged in harassing conduct on
June 24, 2012, and that the trial judge erred in excluding this
evidence.
The greatest difficulties encountered with the day-to-day
application of the PDVA in our trial courts have been with
claims of domestic violence based on alleged acts of harassment.
In determining the extent of the authority granted by the PDVA
for courts to intervene in such disputes, the many decisions of
our jurisprudence reveals the importance of the context or
setting in which the act or acts of harassment occurred. This
was never made more clear than in the opinions authored by then
Judge (later Justice) Long for this court in Peranio v. Peranio,
280 N.J. Super. 47 (App. Div. 1995), and Corrente v. Corrente,
281 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1995). In both cases, the court
recognized the importance of evaluating the alleged harassing
conduct in the particular context of the parties' relationship,
concluding that a childish verbal conflict – or, in Judge Long's
words, "ordinary domestic contretemps," Peranio, supra, 280 N.J.
Super. at 57 – between individuals in the throes of a dissolving
marriage is not sufficient to warrant an FRO. In other words,
the conduct in Peranio – the statement "I'll bury you," id. at
55 – was viewed as having little significance when uttered by
one spouse to another when on the verge of a divorce. But that
11 A-0898-12T4
is not to say that, in a different setting, the same utterance
might not constitute harassment justifying issuance of an FRO.
Our courts would doubtless reach a different result if, after a
first date, an individual asking for but being denied a second
date, were to say: "I'll bury you."
In short, "courts must consider the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether the harassment statute has
been violated." Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 404; see also State
v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 577 (1997) (holding that the purpose
to harass required "may be inferred from . . . [c]ommon sense
and experience"); J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. Super. 387, 391 (App.
Div. 1998) (observing that "absent a showing of surrounding
circumstances which could support a finding that such ordinarily
innocuous conduct constituted an act of harassment . . . such
conduct could not establish the predicate crime for a finding of
domestic violence"). Whether conduct "rises to the level of
harassment or not is fact-sensitive[,] [and] [t]he smallest
additional fact or the slightest alteration in context,
particularly if based on a history between the parties," may
make a considerable difference in the application of the PDVA.
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 484 (2011) (emphasis added).
And so, defendant's conduct on June 24, 2012, in leaving
five voice messages – even though they were not anonymous, or
12 A-0898-12T4
made at inconvenient hours, or expressed in coarse language –
might not have been more than "ordinary domestic contretemps" if
occurring during the dissolution of the parties' marriage. But,
as the record reveals, these parties were divorced a decade
earlier and it was alleged that, during that decade, defendant
repeatedly was ordered not to communicate with plaintiff in that
fashion and repeatedly violated those orders. Whether the five
voice messages in question were meant to or did in fact alarm or
seriously annoy plaintiff, thereby warranting entry of the FRO
plaintiff sought, can only be fairly understood in light of this
history. Plaintiff was entitled to submit evidence of the past
violations of the matrimonial restraints, not because the
violations of those orders are per se "acts of domestic
violence" – they are not – but because those past violations
support the claim that defendant engaged in acts of harassment
by making communications "with purpose to alarm or seriously
annoy." That evidence explains why the recipient would be
alarmed or seriously annoyed by the communications.11
11
In light of our disposition, and because defendant did not
argue in the trial court a denial of due process, we need not
decide the extent to which a plaintiff is required to set forth
such illuminating past circumstances in the complaint. See
H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309, 321-25 (2003).
13 A-0898-12T4
The trial judge erred when he excluded evidence of past
violations of the matrimonial restraints and when he granted an
involuntary dismissal. We, thus, reverse and remand for a new
trial.12
IV
We lastly turn to plaintiff's contention that the motion
judge erred in refusing in 2012 to grant relief from the 2003
order that vacated the 2002 FRO. In considering this point, we
recognize that it is not uncommon for litigants to consent to a
vacation of their FROs while in the course of settling their
matrimonial disputes. Certainly, a victim of domestic violence
takes a risk in so agreeing, because the violation of a
matrimonial order may not trigger the swift and effective
enforcement available to domestic violence victims protected by
FROs. There is no greater proof of that generality than what
has occurred here.
12
Although no longer necessary to our decision, we also observe
that the trial judge erred when he barred plaintiff from calling
defendant to the witness stand. Neither the rules of procedure
nor the rules of evidence prohibit a civil litigant from calling
an adverse party to testify. And, even though we recognize that
trials in domestic violence matters are usually brief, loosely-
conducted affairs, our courts must be vigilant to ensure that
parties' procedural due process rights are maintained. See
J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 481; Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J.
Super. 116, 124-25 (App. Div. 2005).
14 A-0898-12T4
But, a victim of domestic violence – while understanding
that significant rights are waived when stipulating to the
dissolution of an FRO – likely does not anticipate our courts
will refuse, as here, to enforce the superseding matrimonial
restraints. As a result, it is understandable, after attempting
to gain a cessation of defendant's alleged continual attempts at
communication with her in violation of the matrimonial
restraints,13 that plaintiff would attempt to regain the FRO
previously surrendered.
The PDVA provides courts with the authority to "dissolve[]
or modif[y]" a final order in a domestic violence action,
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(d), and Rule 4:50-1 authorizes the granting of
relief from an order or judgment in the interest of justice in a
variety of circumstances, or, in the words of Rule 4:50-1(f),
for "any other reason justifying relief from the operation of
the judgment or order." Although it would no doubt be a rare
case in which this relief could be successfully obtained in
light of the precautions that precede the vacation of an FRO, we
13
Although plaintiff's prior enforcement motions resulted only in
additional, largely redundant orders, our family judges should
be mindful of the authority, provided by Rule 1:10, to impose
monetary sanctions or incarceration as a means of securing
compliance. See, e.g., Milne v. Goldenberg, 428 N.J. Super.
184, 198 (App. Div. 2012); Board of Educ. of Middletown v.
Middletown Twp. Educ. Ass'n, 352 N.J. Super. 501, 508-11 (Ch.
Div. 2001).
15 A-0898-12T4
see no impediment that would bar relief in all cases.14 The
victim's burden at such a stage would be considerable.
Certainly, the movant would be required to demonstrate an
imminent need for protection and would be expected to address
the past desire – presumably expressed only after being
professionally counseled and after a judge's searching inquiry,
see New Jersey Domestic Violence Procedures Manual, § 4.19.1
(October 2008) – for the vacation of the FRO.15 Notwithstanding
such obstacles, there may be instances in which relief might be
warranted.
We do not reach the merits of plaintiff's motion, however.
As with any such application, the court is obliged to consider
whether the movant has sought relief with reasonable expedition.
Here, the record demonstrates that the FRO was vacated in 2003.
Enforcement of the matrimonial restraints was sought in 2006,
and a new domestic violence action was commenced but found
insufficient to warrant issuance of an FRO in 2009. By the time
of the unsuccessful motion now before us, any right to relief
14
Both T.M. v. J.C., 348 N.J. Super. 101 (App. Div. 2002), and
C.O. v. J.O., 292 N.J. Super. 219 (Ch. Div. 1996), to which the
parties and the trial court have alluded, and both of which
considered and reached arguably different results concerning the
effect of a conditional dismissal in a domestic violence action,
are inapposite to the question posed here.
15
See www.judiciary.state.nj.us/family/dvprcman (last visited
March 17, 2014).
16 A-0898-12T4
had long become stale. See, e.g., Orner v. Liu, 419 N.J. Super.
431, 436-37 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 208 N.J. 369 (2011).
Although what constitutes a reasonable time to seek relief is
dependent on the totality of the circumstances, plaintiff
delayed for approximately nine years before filing the motion in
question. It cannot be said that plaintiff moved with the
alacrity demanded by the remedy sought. We, thus, affirm the
motion judge's denial of the motion for relief from the order
dismissing the 2002 FRO.16
V
The July 16, 2012 order, which involuntarily dismissed the
2012 domestic violence action, is reversed and the matter
remanded for a new trial in conformity with this opinion. As a
result, the June 27, 2012 temporary restraining order (TRO) is
hereby reinstated17 and shall remain in full force and effect
16
Plaintiff also appeals the motion judge's denial of
reconsideration of the trial judge's order of dismissal. In
light of our disposition of the other issues, we need not
consider this contention, except to note that the motion judge
incorrectly concluded that only the trial court could reconsider
his order. Despite the difficulty such a circumstance presents
for a subsequent judge, the parties were entitled to a ruling on
the merits of that motion regardless of the unavailability of
the trial judge.
17
The trial court is granted leave to enter its own order
reinstating the TRO and is directed to take all necessary steps
to ensure the immediate service of that order on defendant as
(continued)
17 A-0898-12T4
until the disposition of the new trial we have ordered. The
September 24, 2012 order, which denied relief from the order
that vacated the 2002 FRO, is affirmed. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
(continued)
well as all appropriate law enforcement personnel, as is the
case when an initial TRO is entered.
18 A-0898-12T4