BORRA V. BORRA 756 A.2d 647 (2000) CASE BRIEF

BORRA V. BORRA

756 A.2d 647 (2000)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Borra (P), husband, moved for reconsideration of injunction forbidding him to blackball Borra's (D), wife's, application to join country club in which parties and their minor children had long been active. P argued that the injunction was a prior restraint on free speech violating N.J. Const. art. I, 6.

FACTS: P and D were married and have two children eighteen, and eleven. They filed for divorce on October 20, 1998. As part of their property settlement agreement they submitted an issue over the country club to the court for determination. They had been members of the Tuxedo Country Club since in 1984. The initial bond for membership was paid from joint marital funds, as were the monthly membership fees. Under Club regulations the membership was acquired in P's name. D was heavily involved in Club activities. The children regularly participate in golf lessons, children's tournaments, activities at the swimming pool, and other events at the Club. Both parties have continued to regularly use and enjoy the Club facilities since separation. During that time, they encountered each other only once at the Club. No words were exchanged. D applied for membership in her own name, at her own expense. D's name will be posted at the Club for ten days, during which time any member can object. After expiration of the ten-day period, the governing body makes the final determination on the application. P intends to object to D's application. P's reason for objection is that he did not want to encounter D while he is at the Club either alone or with another woman. P claimed he would feel uncomfortable and embarrassed if D were present while he is at the Club with his female companion. The court found for D in that there would be little contact between the two and that P was acting in bad faith in attempting to exclude D from participating in the children's extracurricular activities, and to control D's social interaction with adults. The court found that P's objection was unreasonable, unfair, arbitrary, and the product of anger and vengeance. D was found to be acting in good faith. P was restrained from formally objecting to D's application. P filed a Notice of Motion for Reconsideration raising state and federal constitutional issues seeking to dissolve the restraint imposed upon him. P claims a violation of his freedom of speech rights under the New Jersey Constitution.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner