NJ & CT News

Family Part Has Jurisdiction Despite Parties' 50-Year Break from Living Together

The Appellate Division has held, in N.G. v. J.P., A-3247-10T3, that even though the parties to a harassment compliant had not lived together in more than 50 years, the Family Part still has jurisdiction to issue a final restraining order against the harasser under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The case involved a brother and sister who had not lived in the same home since the 1960s. Through the years, the brother, J.P., had nursed an ongoing resentment toward his sister (N.G.) and their mother. He allegedly struck his sister with a baseball bat in 1989 and in 1991 when he ran into her in public places. Based on these incidents, N.G. obtained a 1991 final restraining order prohibiting J.P. from coming within four blocks of her home. Despite this, he began picketing and shouting obscenities in front of N.G.'s home in February 2010, and he repeated this behavior on another 28 occasions. These actions prompted N.G. to seek and obtain a final restraining order barring J.P. from entering any portion of Millburn Township. J.P. appealed, claiming that the Family Part lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The Appellate Division applied the six-element test for determining jurisdiction based on the relationship of the parties enunciated in Coleman v. Romano, 388 N.J. Super. 342 (Ch. Div. 2006). Coleman said courts should consider: 1) the duration and nature of the prior relationship between the parties; 2) whether that relationship provides a special opportunity for abuse and controlling behavior; 3) how long it has been since the parties resided together; 4) the extent of contact between the parties since they ceased living together; 5) the nature of the event that precipitated the complaint; and 6) the likelihood that the toxic relationship will continue. All these factors favored a finding that the Family Part should have jurisdiction in this case, save the third. However, the appeals court noted that the extended length of time that had passed since the parties resided together was just one factor to be considered, and was not dispositive on the issue of jurisdiction. Having found that jurisdiction was properly exercised, the court upheld the bulk of the Family Part's decision and remanded for refinements that would allow J.P. to take part in activities he legitimately carries out in Millburn Township.

CONNECTICUT

Valuation Dates: Divorce Term Clarifications Leave Final Judgment Intact

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has held that when a divorced couple engaged in post-judgment proceedings seeking clarification of the order dividing their marital estate, the asset valuation date remained the date of dissolution, not the date of the clarification. The parties in Light v. Grimes, 136 Conn. App. 161 (6/5/12), were divorced, following trial, in May 2008. The court divided their assets on a 50/50 basis, assigning values to each of their assets and listing them in the decision. Two weeks later, both parties moved the court for clarifications and/or modifications of the orders. The final clarifications were issued in December 2008, by which time the value of some of the assets divided by the May 2008 orders had declined. On Jan. 12, 2010, claiming that her ex-husband continued to resist dividing the financial accounts because he believed that the date of valuation fell in December 2008 (when the clarifications were issued), the wife filed a request for a declaration that the date of valuation was May 9, 2008, the date of the original orders. That request was granted, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Court of Connecticut. That court agreed with the lower court, concluding that, in accordance with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. ' 63-1(c)(1) ' which lists motions that, if granted, will render a decision ineffective (such as motions for new trial or to set aside a verdict) ' the May 9, 2008 ruling was a final judgment, and the clarifications sought and issued later did not render it otherwise.

NEW JERSEY

Discipline vs. Child Abuse

In Division of Youth and Family Services v. K.T., A-903-11, New Jersey's Appellate Division recently reversed a decision rendered by Union County Superior Court Judge James Hely, who had found that, under New Jersey case law, a mother did not go too far when she struck her 7-year-old daughter with a belt after discovering the child had kissed a boy. The appeals court found fault with Judge Hely's analysis of case law on the limits of corporal punishment, stating, “Multiple strikes with a belt to a seven-year-old child, which left bruises and marks all over the child's body that were visible seven days after the incident, is hardly the occasional discipline of a wayward or incorrigible teenager condoned by the [Supreme] Court.”

Family Part Has Jurisdiction Despite Parties' 50-Year Break from Living Together

The Appellate Division has held, in N.G. v. J.P., A-3247-10T3, that even though the parties to a harassment compliant had not lived together in more than 50 years, the Family Part still has jurisdiction to issue a final restraining order against the harasser under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The case involved a brother and sister who had not lived in the same home since the 1960s. Through the years, the brother, J.P., had nursed an ongoing resentment toward his sister (N.G.) and their mother. He allegedly struck his sister with a baseball bat in 1989 and in 1991 when he ran into her in public places. Based on these incidents, N.G. obtained a 1991 final restraining order prohibiting J.P. from coming within four blocks of her home. Despite this, he began picketing and shouting obscenities in front of N.G.'s home in February 2010, and he repeated this behavior on another 28 occasions. These actions prompted N.G. to seek and obtain a final restraining order barring J.P. from entering any portion of Millburn Township. J.P. appealed, claiming that the Family Part lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The Appellate Division applied the six-element test for determining jurisdiction based on the relationship of the parties enunciated in Coleman v. Romano , 388 N.J. Super. 342 (Ch. Div. 2006). Coleman said courts should consider: 1) the duration and nature of the prior relationship between the parties; 2) whether that relationship provides a special opportunity for abuse and controlling behavior; 3) how long it has been since the parties resided together; 4) the extent of contact between the parties since they ceased living together; 5) the nature of the event that precipitated the complaint; and 6) the likelihood that the toxic relationship will continue. All these factors favored a finding that the Family Part should have jurisdiction in this case, save the third. However, the appeals court noted that the extended length of time that had passed since the parties resided together was just one factor to be considered, and was not dispositive on the issue of jurisdiction. Having found that jurisdiction was properly exercised, the court upheld the bulk of the Family Part's decision and remanded for refinements that would allow J.P. to take part in activities he legitimately carries out in Millburn Township.

CONNECTICUT

Valuation Dates: Divorce Term Clarifications Leave Final Judgment Intact

The Appellate Court of Connecticut has held that when a divorced couple engaged in post-judgment proceedings seeking clarification of the order dividing their marital estate, the asset valuation date remained the date of dissolution, not the date of the clarification. The parties in Light v. Grimes , 136 Conn. App. 161 (6/5/12), were divorced, following trial, in May 2008. The court divided their assets on a 50/50 basis, assigning values to each of their assets and listing them in the decision. Two weeks later, both parties moved the court for clarifications and/or modifications of the orders. The final clarifications were issued in December 2008, by which time the value of some of the assets divided by the May 2008 orders had declined. On Jan. 12, 2010, claiming that her ex-husband continued to resist dividing the financial accounts because he believed that the date of valuation fell in December 2008 (when the clarifications were issued), the wife filed a request for a declaration that the date of valuation was May 9, 2008, the date of the original orders. That request was granted, leading to the appeal before the Appellate Court of Connecticut. That court agreed with the lower court, concluding that, in accordance with Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. App. P. ' 63-1(c)(1) ' which lists motions that, if granted, will render a decision ineffective (such as motions for new trial or to set aside a verdict) ' the May 9, 2008 ruling was a final judgment, and the clarifications sought and issued later did not render it otherwise.