Summary
The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a domestic violence protective order entered against the defendant. The court held that the one-year limitation for a protective order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3(b) does not include the period during which a preceding ex parte protective order was in effect.
Holdings
- The one-year limitation in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3(b) applies to a DVPO entered after notice and an opportunity to be heard and does not include the time during which a separate ex parte DVPO under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-2 was in effect.
- The trial court did not exceed its statutory authority by entering the DVPO effective through 6 June 2025 because the one-year period was measured from the post-hearing DVPO rather than from the earlier ex parte DVPO.
Questions Presented
- Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3(b)'s one-year maximum period for a DVPO entered after notice and an opportunity to be heard includes the period during which an ex parte DVPO under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-2 was in effect.
- Whether the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by entering the DVPO effective through 6 June 2025.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (13)
- In re Summons Issued to Ernst & Young, LLP, 363 N.C. 612, 684 S.E.2d 151 (2009)(followed)
- Wynn v. Frederick, 385 N.C. 576, 895 S.E.2d 371 (2023)(followed)
- Elec. Supply Co. v. Swain Elec. Co., 328 N.C. 651, 403 S.E.2d 291 (1991)(followed)
- Frye Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Hunt, 350 N.C. 39, 510 S.E.2d 159 (1999)(followed)
- Ayes v. United States VA, 473 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 104 S. Ct. 2769 (1984)(followed)
- Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 112 S. Ct. 1146 (1992)(followed)
- State v. Elder, 368 N.C. 70, 773 S.E.2d 51 (2015)(followed)
- Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 573 S.E.2d 125 (2002)(followed)
- Rudder v. Rudder, 234 N.C. App. 173, 759 S.E.2d 321 (2014)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 13.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…