ROBERT CHATHAM v. KIMBERLY CHATHAM

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2013-05T32013-05T3

ROBERT CHATHAM,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KIMBERLY CHATHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________

 

Argued October 16, 2006 - Decided November 2, 2006

Before Judges Seltzer and C.L. Miniman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family

Part, Sussex County, FV-19-199-06.

Angelo Sarno argued the cause for appellant

(Weinstein Snyder Lindemann Sarno,

attorneys; Edward S. Snyder, of counsel

and on the brief; Scott D. Danaher, on

the brief).

John D. Williams argued the cause for respondent (Gruber Colabella Liuzza Kutyla and Ullmann, attorneys; Mr. Williams,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

After a bench trial, Judge William J. McGovern, III entered a final restraining order pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.

The order was based on a finding that defendant had harassed plaintiff in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c). The judge found that plaintiff and defendant continued to reside in the same house although they were engaged in matrimonial litigation. Defendant lived in a basement apartment while plaintiff lived on the first and second floors. In October 2005, plaintiff, without notice to defendant, brought his sister to live with him in the basement apartment. Thereafter, the judge found

Starting somewhere between 6:55 that evening, on Friday, October 21st, and going throughout the weekend, I find that Ms. Chatham, Kim Chatham, went through a series of fits of -- or episodes of anger which she expressed by stomping on the floor of the rooms above Friday evening, Saturday, Sunday, Sunday morning. I find that Ms. Chatham did tamper with and adjust the thermostat on at least three, if not more, occasions between Friday evening and Saturday evening and Sunday morning. I find that Ms. Chatham did intercept the clothing or take the clothing of Mr. Chatham and his sister from the washer and the dryer and strew them on the floor.

Based on these findings, the judge concluded that plaintiff's behavior constituted an act of domestic violence by virtue of its violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) which prohibits actions undertaken "with purpose to harass another . . . [that constitute a] course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."

Defendant does not suggest that the factual findings are unsupported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence in the record. No such argument might be made given the special deference afforded to the findings of family part judges. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). Accordingly, the judge's factual findings, although based on disputed evidence, are binding on appeal. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).

Defendant argues only that her acts, as found by the trial judge, do not constitute harassment as defined by the statute. We reject that argument as without sufficient merit to justify discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only that the conduct described by the judge might reasonably be considered to be intended to "weary, worry, trouble, or offend," State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 581 (1997), so as to bring the conduct within the prohibition of the harassment statute. We also note that defendant's actions here closely parallel the example of a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) found in Hoffman at 580-81. Given the history of the litigants as described by the judge, defendant's behavior is much more troubling than that described in the opinions to which defendant has referred us.

The judge's evaluation of the evidence was exhaustive, his factual findings were grounded in the evidence, and his conclusion that defendant's behavior constituted an act of domestic violence as a result of a violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) was appropriate.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-2013-05T3

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 2, 2006