No tro if no fear
J.L.M. v. J.W., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Defendant appealed the entry of a final restraining order in favor of plaintiff, after the trial court found that defendant committed the predicate act of harassment against plaintiff. After the parties' divorce, each had some property that remained to be return to each other. Plaintiff applied for and received a TRO against defendant, alleging that defendant had engaged in harassing conduct by sending over 200 emails and texts over a two-month period, addressing the return of the parties' property and defendant's continued feelings and desire to reconcile. At the FRO trial, the trial court found defendant's behavior inappropriate, but not rising to the level of domestic violence because many of defendant's messages dealt with end-of-marriage issues and property return, and were not sent with intent to harass plaintiff. However, the trial court cautioned defendant to cease communicating with plaintiff as plaintiff perceived it to be harassing, making certain reservation for arranging property return. Later on the day after the trial, defendant sent plaintiff an email requesting modification of the date for exchange and addressing other property return issues. Plaintiff sought a second TRO, alleging that defendant's email constituted harassment. However, plaintiff responded to defendant's email, and the parties exchanged several messages. At the second FRO trial, defendant argued that the requisite intent to harass was absent from defendant's email, but the trial court granted judgment for plaintiff, ruling defendant's email, in the context of the prior history rose to the level of harassment. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the record did not support a finding that defendant intended to harass plaintiff, since communication regarding property exchange was expressly permitted by the trial court. The court further found that there was no evidence supporting plaintiff's need for a FRO, since plaintiff did not express a fear of defendant.
J.L.M. v. J.W., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Defendant appealed the entry of a final restraining order in favor of plaintiff, after the trial court found that defendant committed the predicate act of harassment against plaintiff. After the parties' divorce, each had some property that remained to be return to each other. Plaintiff applied for and received a TRO against defendant, alleging that defendant had engaged in harassing conduct by sending over 200 emails and texts over a two-month period, addressing the return of the parties' property and defendant's continued feelings and desire to reconcile. At the FRO trial, the trial court found defendant's behavior inappropriate, but not rising to the level of domestic violence because many of defendant's messages dealt with end-of-marriage issues and property return, and were not sent with intent to harass plaintiff. However, the trial court cautioned defendant to cease communicating with plaintiff as plaintiff perceived it to be harassing, making certain reservation for arranging property return. Later on the day after the trial, defendant sent plaintiff an email requesting modification of the date for exchange and addressing other property return issues. Plaintiff sought a second TRO, alleging that defendant's email constituted harassment. However, plaintiff responded to defendant's email, and the parties exchanged several messages. At the second FRO trial, defendant argued that the requisite intent to harass was absent from defendant's email, but the trial court granted judgment for plaintiff, ruling defendant's email, in the context of the prior history rose to the level of harassment. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the record did not support a finding that defendant intended to harass plaintiff, since communication regarding property exchange was expressly permitted by the trial court. The court further found that there was no evidence supporting plaintiff's need for a FRO, since plaintiff did not express a fear of defendant.
source http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202785930297/Unpublished-Opinions-for-the-Week-of-May-15-2017?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.