Domestic Relations – North Carolina Domestic Violence Act – Domestic Violence Protective Order

The statutory one-year limit applies to the order issued after notice and hearing and does not include time served under a prior ex parte order.

We affirmed the trial court’s issuance of a one-year domestic violence protective order.

The Court addressed an appeal by Defendant challenging the issuance of a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against him. Defendant argued that the trial court exceeded its authority under N.C. Gen. Stat. §50B-3 by issuing a DVPO that extended to 6 June 2025, contending that the combined duration of the ex parte DVPO and the subsequent DVPO violated the statute’s one-year time limitation.

Defendant and Plaintiff, who lived together and shared two minor children, experienced a relationship breakdown after Defendant made threats toward Plaintiff. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed for a DVPO, and the trial court granted ex parte relief effective until March 15, 2024, the date of the scheduled full hearing. Multiple continuances occurred, requested by Defendant due to attorney conflicts and other matters, extending the ex parte DVPO until June 6, 2024. A full hearing was held on that date, after which the court found Defendant had threatened and placed Plaintiff in fear of serious bodily injury, and it entered a one-year DVPO effective until June 6, 2025, including no-contact provisions, residence possession for Plaintiff, custody of the minor children, and visitation rights for Defendant.

On appeal, Defendant argued the one-year statutory limit of N.C. Gen. Stat. §50B-3(b) should incorporate the time already covered by the ex parte DVPO, effectively exceeding the permissible duration. The Court analyzed the statute, emphasizing that protective orders under §50B-3 are issued independently of ex parte orders under §50B-2. Ex parte DVPOs are temporary measures designed to address imminent threats and include their own statutory limitations, such as mandatory hearings within 10 days and restrictions on continuances. In contrast, DVPOs issued after notice and a full hearing are separate, substantive orders enforceable for up to one year, and their one-year limit does not retroactively include time served under a prior ex parte order. The Court also noted that Defendant’s repeated requests for continuances caused the majority of any delay, and the statutory safeguards in §50B-2(c)(5) already address the potential for extended ex parte orders.

Defendant’s reliance on Rudder v. Rudder was rejected because Rudder involved a different scenario in which an ex parte DVPO had expired after more than a year, whereas here the ex parte order expired before the final DVPO was issued. The Court concluded that the trial court properly treated the one-year DVPO as independent and did not exceed its statutory authority.

Affirmed.

Hays v. Lewis (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-011-26, 11 pp.) (Michael Stading, J.) Appealed from Guilford County District Court (Larry L. Archie, J.) Beacon Legal PLLC, by Gavin J. Reardon, for defendant-appellant. Bullock Clay & Furr, PLLC, by Jessica S. Bullock, for plaintiff-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals