Articles Tagged with due process

Published on:

e3bc10d77963468f2705f7119c049b73-300x199On September 20, 2017 the New Jersey Appellate Division approved a domestic violence case for publication the matter of L.C. v. M.A.J. (A4933-15T2), in which the Appellate Division addressed the use of pre-trial in limine motions, which are pretrial motions commonly used to request the court to make legal determinations about evidence before trial, to seek an eve of trial dismissal of a litigant’s pleadings.

The Plaintiff in this case filed a domestic violence complaint in May, 2016 in which she alleged that the defendant was harassing her by sending communications to her and her employer; the complaint further alleged a history of past domestic violence that included physical abuse and controlling conduct.   At the final hearing, Defendant filed a motion in limine to dismiss that he claimed was based on  Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.   His actual pleadings, did not address whether Plaintiff met the elements for a cause of action but asserted that his communications related to parenting issues, not harassment.   The court granted the motion to dismiss the temporary domestic violence restraining order and heard no testimony.

The Appellate Division reversed.  The Appellate Division condemned the use of in limine motions that are dispositive of or seek to terminate an action on the eve of trial.  Instead, an in limine motion at such a late date should only address preliminary or evidentiary issues, and even then such in limine motions are disfavored and should be heard sparingly.  Defendant’s motion did not ask the court to resolve a preliminary or evidence issue, but a sudden and summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, which the Appellate Division found improper, especially in a domestic violence matter where an alleged victim’s safety was at issue.   The Appellate Division stated that in rare cases could a domestic violence case be dismissed before trial, and even then, due process required adequate notice to the plaintiff and an opportunity to respond and file his/her own papers, which Plaintiff in this case did not have an opportunity to do with so little notice.   If Defendant felt that he had grounds for dismissal, he should have instead requested an involuntary dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case or at the close of all the evidence.

Published on:

This past week the New Jersey Appellate Division issued an unpublished opinion in the case of V.J.C vs. M.V. (docket no. A-4587-15T3).  In this case the defendant appealed from a final d744f80a269bdfa75c34d7830ed52c13-300x200restraining order (FRO) entered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. The defendant claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a short adjournment of the April 14, 2016 hearing until his attorney could arrive at the courthouse. The series of events that led to the defendant being in court that day are as follows.  Continue reading

Published on:

On June 5, 2017 the Appellate Division approved for publication its opinion in the matter of TMS-v-WCP, A-4900-15T2, which involves reinstatement of  a final domestic violence restraining

file8731251825687-300x293

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

order.

Published on:

This week the Honorable Stephen Hansbury, P.J. Ch. published a Superior Court opinion that demonstrates how technology and social media is changing the legal landscape and creating new challenges and solutions.   In the published opinion in KA v. JL, in which Judge Hansbury addressed a cause of action that occurred based on a defendant’s use of social media, whether a New Jersey court can obtain personal jurisdiction over an out of state litigant over his use of social media, and whether pleadings may be served via social media. Continue reading

Published on:

On February 1, 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division published its opinion in the case of New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency v. V.E., A-0586-15T4 — A.3d —- (2017). V.E.file000626018085-300x225 is the mother of R.S. now age nine.  V.E. appealed an administrative finding of the New Jersey Division of Child Protection and Permanency  (“DCPP) that “established” a finding of abuse or neglect without her first being given an evidentiary hearing. The Appellate Division reversed the decision of the trial court to not afford V.E. a plenary hearing “because an established finding is a finding of child abuse or neglect under N.J.S.A. 9:6–8.21(c)(4), subject to disclosure as permitted by N.J.S.A. 9:6–8.11a(b) and other statutes, due process considerations require a party against whom abuse or neglect is established be afforded plenary administrative review. The agency’s denial of an administrative hearing is reversed.” Continue reading

Published on:

New Jersey has since the Divorce Reform Act of 1971 stood in the forefront in developing the law as it relates to Marriage and Divorce. We have over the years defined the law, and the Nation has followed and adopted some of our theories as to the distribution of property and the valuation of assets. It has been my pleasure to have been a divorce lawyer during this period of development, and to be recognized as a primary commentator on Family Law though my New Jersey Institute for Legal Education multi-volume treatise The Yudes Family Law Citator. Continue reading