Background
After S.L. obtained a temporary restraining order against D.V., the parties signed a civil restraint agreement under which D.V. accepted restrictions including permanently remaining at least 100 yards from S.L., ceasing contact, destroying recordings, temporarily refraining from possessing firearms, and paying $3,100. In exchange, S.L. dismissed the domestic-violence complaint and TRO. The Family Part judge did not sign the agreement.
D.V. later sought to have the agreement declared unconscionable, void, and unenforceable. The Family Part concluded that it lacked jurisdiction after dismissal of the domestic-violence case, while the Law Division dismissed D.V.’s declaratory-judgment complaint on the ground that the Family Part was the more appropriate forum. D.V. appealed the Law Division’s dismissal and denial of reconsideration.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the Law Division. Because the parties were unmarried, had no children together, had no support dispute, and had dismissed the domestic-violence proceeding, no existing Family Part docket category covered their contractual dispute. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, however, provides a potential basis for the Law Division to decide questions concerning a contract’s validity, subject to justiciability requirements and any defenses S.L. may raise.
Exercising original jurisdiction over two threshold issues, the court held that the agreement could not itself expand the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. A breach of civil restraints does not automatically constitute domestic violence, so paragraph 4—declaring any violation a new incident of domestic violence—was invalid. Paragraph 2 likewise could not confer Family Part jurisdiction or require a future court to admit evidence of a breach. The court expressed no ultimate view on the remaining provisions or whether they could be severed, modified, or invalidated.
Key Takeaways
- A dispute over civil restraints may proceed in the Law Division under the Declaratory Judgments Act when no Family Part docket category applies.
- Private parties cannot contractually define every breach of civil restraints as an act of domestic violence under the PDVA.
- A civil restraint agreement cannot dictate the admissibility of evidence in a future domestic-violence proceeding or independently create Family Part jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision provides a judicial forum for challenges to civil restraint agreements entered after domestic-violence complaints are dismissed, while preserving defenses such as lack of justiciability, limitations, laches, and other contract defenses.
It also draws a firm distinction between privately negotiated restraints and statutory domestic-violence orders: civil restraints cannot create predicate acts, contempt exposure, evidentiary mandates, or jurisdiction beyond what the Legislature and court rules authorize.