O.H. v. T.E.H. - Domestic Violence Restraining Order Fee Denial
Summary
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division dismissed an appeal concerning a denial of counsel fees in a domestic violence case. The court found the issue moot because a related opinion vacated the underlying final restraining order, rendering the fee determination without practical effect.
What changed
The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division has dismissed an appeal in the case of O.H. v. T.E.H. (Docket No. A-2656-24). The appeal concerned the denial of plaintiff O.H.'s request for counsel fees after he secured a final restraining order (FRO) against defendant T.E.H. under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The court determined that the appeal was moot because a related opinion, filed simultaneously, vacated the FRO and remanded the case for a new hearing. Consequently, the fee determination was rendered without practical effect.
This decision means that the plaintiff's request for counsel fees is now moot and cannot be practically addressed. The underlying domestic violence case will proceed to a new hearing. For legal professionals involved in similar cases, this highlights the interconnectedness of orders and the potential for subsequent appeals to become moot if the foundational ruling is overturned. No specific compliance actions are required for regulated entities, as this is a judicial decision specific to the parties involved.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
O.H. v. T.E.H.
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: A-2656-24
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Combined Opinion
RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2656-24
O.H.,1
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
T.E.H.,
Defendant-Respondent.
Submitted January 13, 2026 – Decided March 19, 2026
Before Judges Rose and Torregrossa-O'Connor.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County,
Docket No. FV-04-0556-25.
Einhorn, Barbarito, Frost, Botwinick, Nunn &
Musmanno, PC, attorneys for appellant (Matheu D.
Nunn and Jessie M. Mills, on the brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
1
We use initials to protect the parties' privacy. R. 1:38-3(d)(12).
Plaintiff O.H. appeals from the January 1, 2025 Family Part order denying
his request for counsel fees following a hearing in which he prevailed in securing
a final restraining order (FRO) against defendant T.E.H. under the Prevention
of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-
29(b)(4). Simultaneously with the filing of this opinion, we are filing our related
opinion in A-1475-24, vacating the FRO and remanding for a new hearing.
Because the challenged fee determination in the present matter flowed from the
FRO we now vacate, plaintiff's application for counsel fees is rendered moot.
"An issue is 'moot when our decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can
have no practical effect on the existing controversy.'" Redd v. Bowman, 223
N.J. 87, 104 (2015) (quoting Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Mitchell, 422 N.J.
Super. 214, 221-22 (App. Div. 2011)).
Dismissed as moot.
A-2656-24
2
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when NJ Superior Court Appellate Division publishes new changes.