## Facts

- Husband and wife married in 1978 and had two children.
- During the marriage, the parties joined a private country club; the membership was in the husband’s name under club rules, but the initiation bond and fees were paid with marital funds.
- The wife participated extensively in club activities, and the children regularly used club facilities and programs.
- After separation, both parties continued to use the club without significant conflict.
- In a divorce settlement, the existing club membership and its monetary value were allocated to the husband, but the wife sought to obtain her own separate membership at her expense.
- After the wife applied for membership, the husband announced he would appear before the club’s governing body to oppose her application, citing embarrassment and discomfort if they encountered each other.
- The Family Part entered an injunction barring the husband from taking action to oppose the wife’s membership application.
- The husband moved for reconsideration, arguing the injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Part may, in post-judgment matrimonial proceedings, enjoin an ex-spouse from interfering with the other ex-spouse’s efforts to obtain separate country-club membership connected to the children’s established activities.
2. Whether an injunction barring the husband from formally opposing the wife’s club application is an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment and N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 6.

## Decision

- The court denied the husband’s motion for reconsideration.
- The court upheld the injunction prohibiting the husband from contesting the wife’s club membership application.
- The court held the Family Part had equitable authority to enter the restraint to protect post-divorce family functioning and the children’s continuity.
- The court rejected the husband’s free-speech challenge because the restraint was narrow, context-specific, and justified by legitimate family-law interests.

## Legal Principles

- The Family Part, sitting in equity, may enter post-judgment orders restraining a party’s conduct when necessary to protect the welfare of children and preserve stability in their established activities and environment.
- Allocation of an existing asset in equitable distribution does not, without more, confer a right to obstruct the other party from independently pursuing a comparable opportunity at personal expense.
- A speech-related injunction in a family matter may be constitutionally permissible when limited to a specific act, narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests (including children’s best interests), and not a broad prohibition on expression.

## Conclusion

The court left in place an injunction preventing the husband from formally opposing the wife’s separate country-club membership application, finding the Family Part’s equitable authority and the children’s continuity interests justified the order and that its limited scope did not violate state or federal free-speech protections.


Borra v. Borra, 333 N.J. Super. 607, 756 A.2d 647 (Ch. Div. 2000)