Bryant v. Burnett
624 A.2d 584, 264 N.J. Super. 222 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who has lived in another's home for a significant period, such as three months, qualifies as a "household member" under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991, regardless of the parties' subjective intent concerning the permanency of the living arrangement.
Facts:
- James Burnett invited Cathy Bryant to live with him because she had no place to stay.
- Bryant lived continuously in Burnett's residence for three months, keeping her possessions there.
- Burnett claimed he did not intend for the arrangement to be permanent and that Bryant was supposed to get her own place after finding a job.
- On January 7, 1992, Burnett hit Bryant, pulled her hair, and knocked her to the floor.
- Burnett also threatened Bryant with additional violence.
- As a result of the altercation, Bryant required emergency room treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Cathy Bryant filed a sworn complaint against James Burnett under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
- The Millville Municipal Court (court of first instance) issued a temporary restraining order on January 7, 1992.
- A final hearing was scheduled in the Superior Court, but defendant Burnett did not appear as he was incarcerated on another charge.
- The Superior Court judge continued the temporary restraining order and issued a bench warrant for Burnett.
- A final hearing was held on March 18, 1992, at which both parties appeared.
- The Superior Court judge entered a final, permanent restraining order against Burnett.
- Burnett, as appellant, appealed the entry of the permanent restraining order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, with Bryant as respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person who lived with an alleged abuser for three months qualify as a "household member" eligible for protection under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991, even if the parties intended the living arrangement to be temporary?
Opinions:
Majority - King, P.J.A.D.
Yes. A person who lived with an alleged abuser for three months is considered a 'household member' under the Act, even if the arrangement was intended to be temporary. The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991 replaced the narrower term 'cohabitant' with the broader term 'present or former household member' to expand its protections. The Legislature intended for the Act's remedies to be broadly applied to protect victims in family-like settings. Therefore, the court found that the parties' intent regarding the permanency of their living arrangement was irrelevant; the objective fact that they lived together as members of the same household for three months was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under the Act.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of New Jersey's domestic violence law by clarifying the meaning of 'household member.' It establishes that the objective reality of a shared living situation, rather than the parties' subjective intent about the relationship's permanence, is the key factor. This precedent makes it easier for individuals in temporary, informal, or non-traditional living arrangements to obtain protection under the Act. The ruling signals that courts should focus on the protective purpose of the statute and interpret its jurisdictional requirements liberally to include all victims in family-like settings.
