Smith v. Moore
298 N.J. Super. 121, 689 A.2d 145 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a court to have jurisdiction under the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act based on a 'former household member' relationship, the alleged act of violence must be related to the prior domestic relationship, which itself must provide a special opportunity for abusive and controlling behavior. A temporary or transient living arrangement, such as a seasonal vacation share, does not create a domestic relationship sufficient to invoke the Act for a subsequent dispute that is unrelated to that living arrangement.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant, along with other young women, were friends who shared a house at the Jersey Shore on weekends during the summer of 1995.
- During that summer, Defendant was in a dating relationship with a man named Martin M.
- After the summer, Defendant and Martin M. ended their relationship.
- In late October 1995, Plaintiff began dating Martin M.
- From November 1995 through April 1996, Defendant made a series of hostile and harassing phone calls to Plaintiff concerning Plaintiff's relationship with Martin M.
- On April 23, 1996, Defendant called Plaintiff at 12:15 a.m., called her a 'slut,' and told her to 'fuck off.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint for harassment against Defendant in the Kearny Municipal Court.
- The matter was transferred to the Family Part of the Superior Court, Hudson County, for a plenary hearing under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
- The Superior Court judge found for the Plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence and entered a final restraining order against the Defendant.
- Defendant appealed the entry of the final restraining order to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 temporary, part-time summer living arrangement among friends qualify as a 'former household member' relationship under the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, thereby granting a court jurisdiction over a harassment complaint that is unrelated to the prior living situation?
Opinions:
Majority - King, P.J.A.D.
No. A temporary, part-time summer living arrangement does not establish a 'former household member' relationship sufficient to confer jurisdiction under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act for a harassment dispute that is unrelated to that living arrangement. The court reasoned that the Act is intended to address violence that occurs in a 'family or family-like setting' and constitutes a pattern of abusive and controlling behavior. Citing precedent from Jutchenko v. Jutchenko, the court emphasized that for jurisdiction to attach, the alleged perpetrator’s past domestic relationship must have provided a 'special opportunity for abusive and controlling behavior.' In this case, the dispute was motivated by jealousy over a boyfriend and bore no relationship to the parties' prior, temporary vacation housing arrangement. Therefore, the matter is a simple harassment case properly handled in municipal court, not a domestic violence case for the Superior Court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the potential scope of the 'former household member' provision within the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. It establishes that a mere history of cohabitation is insufficient; there must be a substantive nexus between the nature of the past domestic relationship and the subsequent abusive conduct. The court's ruling reflects a judicial concern with preventing the 'trivialization' of the Act and ensuring that the specialized resources of the Family Part are reserved for the serious patterns of abuse the legislature intended to address. This creates a higher jurisdictional bar, requiring future litigants to demonstrate that the conflict arose from the dynamics of the prior domestic setting, rather than from a new and unrelated dispute.
