Gabriele Pietz-Vogel v. Cathy Oliver-Hommes

── Gabriele Pietz-Vogel v. Cathy Oliver-Hommes ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2179-24 GABRIELE PIETZ-VOGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATHY OLIVER-HOMMES, Defendant-Respondent. _________________________ Submitted May 5, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026 Before Judges Firko and Perez Friscia. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Docket No. L-1940-24. Gabriele Pietz-Vogel, self-represented appellant. Conte Clayton & Austin, PA, attorneys for respondent (Michael A. Austin, on the brief). PER CURIAM Plaintiff Gabriele Pietz-Vogel, self-represented, appeals from the January 2, 2025 trial court order granting defendant Cathy Oliver-Hommes' motion to dismiss plaintiff's libel complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Plaintiff also appeals from the April 22, 2025 court order awarding defendant attorney's fees. Following our review of the parties' arguments, record, and applicable law, we affirm. I. Defendant filed a Probate Part action seeking guardianship of her mother, Emma Oliver. Defendant has one brother, Boyd Oliver. 1 Plaintiff intervened in the guardianship proceeding, believing she should be Emma's guardian. Plaintiff is not related to Emma. On June 27, 2024, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging "libel" and seeking "compensation," "an injunction," and "a retraction" of defendant's statements made relating to the guardianship proceeding. Plaintiff alleged defendant made false statements consisting of: medical knowledge misrepresentations, financial misconduct accusations, forgery and fraud allegations, family life implications, and racial discrimination. Plaintiff submitted with her complaint an attachment directed to the probate judge, which alleged she learned of defendant's actions after the guardianship "court appointment." Plaintiff averred defendant "ha[d] 1 Because this matter involves family members with the same surname, we refer to Emma Oliver and Boyd Oliver by their first names. We intend no disrespect. A-2179-24 2 engaged in a pattern of slanderous behavior intended to undermine [her] reputation and discredit [her] efforts to support Emma . . . and her son, Boyd." She alleged defendant was defaming and harassing her with "false[] accus[ations]" of "improper conduct and . . . motivations in helping Emma." Plaintiff requested "compensation for [her] services, not from Emma nor Boyd, but solely from . . . [defendant]," because defendant's "malfeasance . . . [required] Emma . . . to seek [plaintiff's] help." Plaintiff allegedly "devot[ed] over 100 hours of pro bono services to assist Emma . . . in recovering her . . . documents and managing her affairs." Plaintiff asserted "[t]he market value of [her] services" was comparable to "a law firm" and valued between "$10,000 to $20,000." On August 26, 2024, defense counsel served plaintiff with a frivolous litigation letter pursuant to Rule 1:4-8 and N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, demanding plaintiff withdraw her claim within the twenty-eight-day safe harbor period. Defendant asserted plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for an act of slander or