[brief] The trial court also erred in concluding [...] had probable cause to institute criminal charges against [...].  The proposed amended pleading set forth [...]’s admission that he knew the allegations in his criminal complaint were false when he filed them.  In addition, the proposed pleading explained the municipal court judge, following review, found no probable cause.  As a result, the proposed Second Amended Complaint more than sufficiently alleged a lack of probable cause sufficient to meet the pleading standard.  At its very core, probable cause is based on whether the affiant “honestly believed” in the truth of the charge at the time it was made.  LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 199 N.J. 62, 93 (2009); Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 11 N.J. Super. 471, 477 (App. Div. 1951).  Here, the proposed Second Amended Complaint set forth [...]’s admissions, which sufficiently revealed [...] did not honestly believe the truth of the charges at the time he wrote them.  Instead of limiting its analysis to the allegations in the proposed pleading, the trial court mistakenly concluded [...] had probable cause because [...] relied on what other unidentified persons supposedly told him.  No evidence existed for this finding.  Moreover, (1) [...] testified that he was the sole witness to the allegations in the criminal complaint, and (2) the criminal complaint itself did not mention any hearsay, circumstantial evidence, or other witnesses, but was couched entirely in [...]’s own (albeit false) first-person observations.  There was no factual or legal basis for the trial court to have considered what others may have told [...], especially when [...] testified he was the lone witness.  The trial court also went beyond the pleading and concluded [...]’s personal observation – which took place on a single occasion from two blocks away – provided probable cause to file criminal charges against [...].  (2T8:5-2T16:6).  [...] expressly testified:  “I got out of my beach chair and looked north and saw someone coming down, I don’t know if they were Westerholds’ children, friends or Mr. Westerhold himself. ” (Pa317).  He also testified that “They seemed to be younger people.  I think one was a man with brown hair.  I forget, I thought there were three people.  I stood up and looked north.  I just remember somebody coming to tell me about it, so I stood up and looked north and witnessed it. ”  (Pa318).  [...]’s testimony does not support the trial court’s finding.  Not only had [...] admitted he did not know who he saw from two blocks away, but he specifically testified he did not know if [...] was one of the individuals he saw.  Accordingly, the trial court erred when it concluded [...]’s limited personal observation provided probable cause to file criminal charges against a specific person.  The trial court also erred when it failed to consider (1) the criminal complaint claimed [...] witnessed [...] commit these same crimes “continuously” over an eight-month period, even though [...]’s personal observation was limited to one event concerning persons [...] could not identify, and (2)  Defendants constructed their fence on August 2, 2021, making it impossible for [...] to have seen [...] break a then-non-existent fence in the preceding seven months, as [...] alleged in the criminal complaint.  B.