In a Decision – D.C.A. v. M.J.A.. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division determined that a Victim’s quest for Final Restraining Order was warranted and that the Husband was not entitled to sue her because she unsuccessfully sought a Domestic Violence Order.
The Husband filed tort claims against Wife for her having filed and unsuccessfully litigated a complaint seeking a Final Restraining Order, The court first ruled that Husband’s malicious prosecution claim failed, since such a claim only referred to redress for malicious criminal prosecution. As for Husband’s malicious use of civil process claim, the Appellate division ruled that Husband had failed to establish probable cause that Wife was motivated by malice and lacked probable cause to seek a Final Restraining Order. The Appellate Division determined a reasonable person would believe that Husband was following and/or harassing Wife, as Wife was unaware that Husband was not following her but instead was headed to his workplace. The Appellate Division to noted that the terms of the Temporary Restraining Order obtained by Wife were no different than the terms set out for the parties in their Final Judgment of Divorce. The Appellate division further ruled that it would not be reasonable for Wife to seek to diminish Husband’s income considering his obligation to financially support the parties’ children.