1. Doctrine of necessity explained to require spouse to pay medical bills of other spouse
2. Hindering his own apprehension affirmed
3. In DV, plaintiff here did not need to prove "course of conduct"
4. NJ Bar President Timothy F. McGoughran
1. Doctrine of necessity explained to require spouse to pay medical bills of other spouse S. Ocean Med. Ctr. v. Estate of Parker
Defendants appealed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff. Plaintiff rendered medical services to decedent; each time, he executed an insurance assignment and patient financial responsibility agreement. Plaintiff submitted its bills to decedent's health insurer, resulting in decedent having an aggregate out-of-pocket responsibility of over $2,100. After decedent died intestate, his wife valued his estate at $125. Plaintiff unsuccessfully demanded payment from decedent and his wife. Plaintiff then filed the present suit to recover the balance due plus interest and attorney fees. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment; in response, defendants merely argued that plaintiff's wife was not responsible for her late husband's medical expenses until a determination that decedent's financial resources were insufficient to satisfy the debt. Defendants further contended that plaintiff had yet to establish the reasonable value of decedent's medical services, arguing that the invoices alone were insufficient to establish reasonable value. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion, noting that defendants never sought discovery regarding the charges for decedent's treatment and thus defendants' arguments did not create a genuine issue of material fact as they presented no evidence to contradict plaintiff's bills.
On appeal, the court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for plaintiff. The court first noted that plaintiff's billing records constituted hearsay, but the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff's billing manager was qualified to certify the authenticity of the records to admit the records under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The court also rejected defendants' assertion that plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the charges were reasonable. Finally, the court found that the doctrine of necessaries applied to impose liability on decedent's wife. A-0797-22 Unreported Source daily briefing 2022-09-21
2. Hindering his own apprehension affirmed State v. Shabaan
Defendant appealed his convictions for hindering his own apprehension by providing a false name to law enforcement and driving with a revoked or suspended license. During trial, defendant and his wife testified that she was the driver and defendant was in the rear of the minivan with their children. The arresting officer testified that at precinct headquarters, defendant broke down and admitted he was the driver. Municipal court found the testifying police officer more credible than defendant and his wife and thus found defendant guilty on the charges of hindering apprehension and driving under a suspended license. Defendant appealed, and trial de novo was conducted on a review of the municipal court record.
Trial court rejected defendant's assertions that municipal court erred by: failing to conduct a hearing on the admissibility of his statement at the police headquarters; crediting the officer's testimony; and permitting testimony regarding a records abstract showing the names that dispatch had run through the NCIC database. Trial court concluded defendant's statement admitting he was the driver would be admissible as a statement against interest and was voluntary rather than the result of interrogation. Ultimately, however, trial court did not consider defendant's statement in determining guilt on the charges alleged. Trial court further deemed the records abstract and the NCIC information it reflected were admissible as business records and public records. Finally, trial court independently credited the officer's testimony and deemed defendant's testimony, and that of his wife, to be self-serving and not credible. Trial court imposed same fine, costs, and assessments imposed by municipal court. Defendant appealed. Court affirmed. Court rejected defendant's challenges as lacking sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. Court affirmed for substantially the reasons set forth by trial court, noting that trial court did not consider defendant's police headquarters statement in its determination, the disputed abstract and NCIC information were not admitted into evidence, and trial court's factual and credibility findings were supported by the record. A-0559-21 source NJLJ July 31, 2023
3. In DV, plaintiff here did not need to prove "course of conduct" M.B. v. C.C.
Plaintiff appealed trial court's denial of her request for a final restraining order. Plaintiff and defendant had a romantic relationship until plaintiff moved out of defendant's apartment while pregnant with their child. Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order, after which trial court conducted a trial regarding issuance of an FRO. Plaintiff testified and offered evidence that defendant had a history of texting and calling her repeatedly, using obscene language in texts and voicemails, and threatening her. Defendant's behavior was erratic, at times seeming normal after an outburst of obscene language and non-specific threats. Plaintiff also testified that in the past defendant had strangled her, threatened to strike her in an attempt to cause her to miscarry their baby, and had punched holes in a bathroom door, which she documented with photographs. Trial court concluded plaintiff was credible and that her allegations were not disputed by defendant. Trial court nonetheless denied an FRO because it found plaintiff failed to prove terroristic threats, stalking, or harassment. Plaintiff appealed. Court vacated and remanded for a new trial before a different judge who was to consider the evidence and testimony from the first trial. Trial court's findings were not supported by credible evidence, court said. To the contrary, they were inconsistent with the evidence and admissions offered at trial. Trial court misapplied the law when it found plaintiff failed to prove harassment or a course of conduct by defendant on the theory defendant had purportedly legitimate reasons to contact plaintiff on different occasions. Court admonished further that a plaintiff did not need to prove a "course of conduct" to establish harassment. Indeed, court said, a single act, under proper circumstances, can meet the statutory definition of harassment. Here, defendant's non-specific threats had no legitimate goal, but appeared intended to annoy or harass without any other purpose. Court directed that the new trial court address and make new determinations, also, on plaintiff's claims of terroristic threats and stalking. Court also noted that the probability for further abuse to plaintiff was supported in the record where defendant admitted his inability to control his behavior. unreported A-3319-21 source NJNJ September 07, 2023.
4. NJ Bar President Timothy F. McGoughran
President McGoughran’s involvement with the NJSBA traces back to his early years as a lawyer. He was a member of the NJSBA’s Young Lawyers Division and went on to chair the Association’s Family Law Section, before joining the Board of Trustees and Executive Committee. He served as president of the Monmouth Bar Association for the organization’s 100th anniversary in 2007.
He is also a former municipal court judge in Monmouth County.
