FRO granted where Defendant posted sexually graphic text messages and images

 D.I.L. v. T.L.B. Defendant appealed the FRO entered against her and the dismissal of her cross-complaint seeking a FRO against plaintiff.  

Defendant appealed the FRO entered against her and the dismissal of her cross-complaint seeking a FRO against plaintiff. The parties had a dating relationship while plaintiff was engaged to another woman. Defendant posted sexually graphic text messages and images, sharing them with plaintiff's fiancée and several of her relatives and friends. The trial court concluded that defendant posted the messages with the purpose to harass and exert control over plaintiff or harm his relationship with his fiancée, rejecting her denials of posting the messages and images as not credible. The trial court further found that a FRO was necessary for plaintiff's protection, expressing concern over defendant's actions that included creating fake social media profiles to harass plaintiff. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court deferred to the trial court's credibility determinations that found defendant's testimony wholly incredible and concluded that defendant sought to harass plaintiff due to his relationship with his fiancée and with other women. The court further affirmed the trial court's conclusion that there was no evidence that plaintiff sought to harass defendant in return.

Daily briefing  December 08, 2022 

Court rejected FRO and noted that plaintiff's decision to come back into the marital home after obtaining a TRO while defendant was inside indicated that she was not in fear of future violence M.A.D. v. B.L.D

 Court rejected FRO and noted that plaintiff's decision to come back into the marital home after obtaining a TRO while defendant was inside indicated that she was not in fear of future violence

 M.A.D. v. B.L.D. Plaintiff appealed the denial of a FRO against defendant, plaintiff's ex-husband.   Daily briefing December 05, 2022

Plaintiff appealed the denial of a FRO against defendant, plaintiff's ex-husband. When the parties' marriage began to deteriorate in 2015, they began litigating in the family part, with plaintiff obtaining three TROs against defendant. Plaintiff dismissed each TRO within days. She also filed for divorce in 2015 but voluntarily withdrew the complaint. Defendant filed his own divorce complaint in 2017, leading to the parties' divorce in 2018. The parties were awarded joint custody of their unemancipated children, with plaintiff being named the parent of primary residence and defendant being awarded parenting time. Plaintiff later obtained another TRO, leading to the entry of a consent order with civil restraints, which allowed plaintiff to relocate to Florida with the parties' children. Defendant moved back into the marital residence, which had not yet been sold. Plaintiff later decided to return to New Jersey and began living in the marital residence with defendant, based on an agreement that defendant would move out in about six months. Defendant was unable to leave due to the COVID-19 pandemic, causing the parties' relationship to further deteriorate. The parties cross-filed domestic violence complaints, each alleging that the other assaulted them. At trial, defendant admitted to using vulgar language towards plaintiff but denied making any harmful physical contact. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant committed acts in violation of the TRO she obtained against him. The trial court denied both parties' requests for FROs, finding that the predicate acts alleged by both parties merely amounted to "domestic contretemps." The trial court further found plaintiff not credible and determined that the video evidence showed plaintiff engaging in a pattern of trying to prod defendant into angry or violent behavior. The trial court also noted that plaintiff's decision to come back into the marital home after obtaining a TRO while defendant was inside indicated that she was not in fear of future violence. On appeal, the court affirmed, declining to disturb the trial court's credibility determinations