Opinion ID: 2338715
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Entire Controversy Doctrine in Family Actions

Text: The entire controversy doctrine applies to family actions. See Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282, 290-91, 678 A. 2d 667 (1996) (requiring joinder of a personal injury claim in a divorce proceeding); Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422, 434, 400 A. 2d 1189 (1979) (stating in dicta that the marital tort claim should have been joined with the dissolution proceeding); see also Brown v. Brown, 208 N.J. Super. 372, 379, 506 A. 2d 29 (App.Div. 1986) (stating that [h]ad the marital tort here occurred prior to the institution of the divorce action ... there would be no question of plaintiff's obligation to have raised it as a separate claim in her subsequently filed divorce action); Pressler, Current N.J. Court Rules, comment 5 on R. 5:1-2(5)(1998) (It is, of course, also clear that the entire controversy doctrine applies to family actions. Consequently, a marital tort is required to be joined with a pending family action involving the same parties.). In Brennan, supra, the wife filed for divorce in the Chancery Division, Family Part, in October 1994. Two weeks later, she filed a tort complaint in the Law Division alleging that her husband struck her in the head following an argument in February 1994. Thereafter, the Family Part consolidated the two actions. In finding that joinder was appropriate under the entire controversy doctrine, the Court reasoned that [t]he tort arose out of the marital relationship. In addition, the tort complaint alleges many of the same factual circumstances as the divorce complaint that [the wife] had filed two weeks earlier. 145 N.J. at 291, 678 A. 2d 667. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied in part on Tevis, supra . In Tevis, the Court held that the statute of limitations barred a wife's tort claim against her husband because she filed suit two years after the alleged incident. 79 N.J. at 432, 400 A. 2d 1189. Notably, she instituted the tort action against her husband two weeks after the conclusion of the dissolution proceedings. In dicta, the Court stated: Since the circumstances of the marital tort and its potential for money damages were relevant in the matrimonial proceedings, the claim should not have been held in abeyance; it should, under the single controversy doctrine, have been presented in conjunction with that action as part of the overall dispute between the parties in order to lay at rest all their legal differences in one proceeding and avoid the prolongation and fractionalization of litigation. [ Id. at 434, 400 A. 2d 1189.] Hence, the Court ruled that, under the entire controversy doctrine, marital tort claims should be joined with dissolution proceedings because the potential for money damages was relevant. Ibid.; see Brennan, supra, 145 N.J. at 290, 678 A. 2d 667 (discussing Tevis ).