Is Willful Failure To Comply Necessary For An Order To Be Enforced?

You see it all of the time. In defense of an enforcement motion, a litigant says "I didn't knowingly violate the Order", "I didn't willfully violate the Order", "it wasn't my fault", "it was an honest mistake." In fact, just last week someone was trying to add the term "willful" to an agreement to essentially make enforcement impossible because he would just blame is non-compliance on oversight or some other excuse. Worse yet, judges sometimes buy the excuse and fail to find a party in violation of litigants rights even though there is no dispute that an Order or Agreement was breached.

But is "willful violation" actually the standard for enforcement? Well yesterday, the Supreme Court reminded us that it was not the standard in In re Adoption of N.J.A.C. 5:96 & 5:97 by N.J. Council on Affordable Housing. This case is not a family law case, mind you, but rather, another in the long line of affordable housing cases. That said, the Supreme Court told us once again what the standard is, as follows:

Although Rule 1:10-3 encompasses the notion of civil contempt, we have expressly stated that "we view the process [under Rule 1:10-3] as one of relief to litigants." In re Daniels, 118 N.J. 51, 60 (per curiam) (emphasis added) (citing R. 1:10-5, now R. 1:10-3), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 111 S. Ct. 371, 112 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1990). The focus being on the vindication of litigants' rights, relief sought pursuant to Rule 1:10-3 does not necessarily require establishing that the violator of an order acted with intention to disobey. Indeed, courts have recognized that "demonstration of a mens rea, wilful disobedience and lack of concern for the order of the court, is necessary for a finding of contempt, but irrelevant in a proceeding designed simply to enforce a judgment on a litigant's behalf." Lusardi v. Curtis Point Prop. Owners Ass'n, 138 N.J. Super. 44, 49 (App. Div. 1975) (emphasis added); see also N.J. Dep't of Health v. Roselle, 34 N.J. 331, 347 (1961) ("The Appellate Division correctly held that upon a litigant's application for enforcement of an injunctive order, relief should not be refused merely because the violation was not willful.").

It bears repeating in connection with this present application that our Court Rules generally are to be construed and applied to secure a just determination and to achieve simplicity in procedure. R. 1:1-2. That admonition has particular force when it comes to assisting a litigant in securing vindication of...