Opinion ID: 2338715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Institution of Tort Suit

Text: Four months after that settlement, Bruce and Beverly Oliver instituted a tort suit against Ambrose, based on his alleged abusive and violent behavior against Beverly between 1981 and 1988. The Complaint alleged: assault and battery, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium for Bruce Oliver. Ambrose then filed declaratory judgment actions against his homeowner's insurance carriers for coverage of plaintiffs' claims. In August 1990, the court consolidated the declaratory judgment actions with the tort action against Ambrose. In September 1992, the Olivers amended their Complaint to include a claim of false imprisonment. On October 5, 1992, Ambrose filed an Answer to Amended Complaint in which he raised as a separate defense that plaintiffs' claim was barred by the entire controversy doctrine. In September 1993, Ambrose and his insurers moved for summary judgement on the ground that the tort claims should have been brought in the adoption/harassment action or as counterclaims in the custody action. Ambrose further argued that the tort claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. See N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2. The trial court reserved on the entire controversy doctrine issue, but ordered a plenary  Lopez  hearing, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2, to determine when the statute of limitations began to run. During the eleven-day Lopez hearing, the court heard testimony from Ambrose, Beverly, and from the parties' experts on Beverly's state of mind. Because the trial court found that Beverly failed to show that she was incompetent or otherwise incapable of bringing suit during that period, the court concluded that the statute of limitations barred all claims that were not instituted within two years from their occurrence. Thus, all claims based on Ambrose's conduct prior to December 26, 1987 were barred. The court further held that the entire controversy doctrine barred all claims up until August 4, 1989, the date the custody action was settled. The court concluded that there was an intentional withholding of the claim by [Beverly] knowing that she intended to file it later. Furthermore, [s]he wanted him to voluntarily surrender any rights to Melissa so that she and Mr. Oliver could raise her as their own, which she succeeded in, and she did not want to upset the apple cart with another lawsuit. The Olivers appealed. In an unpublished opinion, a divided Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal on entire controversy doctrine grounds. In affirming, the majority reasoned that the entire controversy doctrine requires that a party who has elected to hold back from an initial lawsuit a related component of the controversy be barred from thereafter raising it in a subsequent proceeding. The court further noted that, in applying the entire controversy doctrine, the central consideration is whether the claims arise from related facts of the same transaction or series of transactions. The majority, therefore, concluded that since the Olivers' tort claims were based on the same facts relevant to the custody/harassment action, the claims should have been joined in that action. This appeal is before us as a result of Judge Shebell's dissent, which reads in its entirety: I would not subscribe to a rule that requires a parent to join a claim for assault in an action to determine custody. It serves no purpose related to the efficient administration of justice and would detract from a determination of the best interests of the child. I would reverse as to the application of the entire controversy doctrine. The Olivers appealed to this Court under Rule 2:2-1. They did not file a petition for certification. Accordingly, the only issue before this Court is the issue raised in Judge Shebell's dissent: whether the entire controversy doctrine should apply to custody actions. We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division, and hold that custody actions are not exempt from the application of the entire controversy doctrine.