Jarrett v. Jarrett

North Carolina Court of Appeals · Family Law

Family LawDomestic Violence Protective OrdersStalkingEvidenceCivil ProcedureDVPOdomestic violencecontinued harassment

Facts

Plaintiff and defendant were former spouses with two children. Plaintiff sought a DVPO alleging, among other things, that defendant repeatedly followed her on the highway, pulled in front of her vehicle, and slammed on his brakes, causing her fear and emotional distress. After a hearing, the trial court found that these incidents occurred on three occasions in March, May, and mid-June 2015, caused plaintiff substantial emotional distress, and were acts of stalking with no legitimate purpose. The court entered a DVPO restricting defendant's contact and conduct and also ordered firearms-related relief, including surrender of certain firearms and suspension of his concealed handgun permit.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly concluded that defendant committed domestic violence and stalking based on the highway incidents, and whether the resulting DVPO relief was legally supported. The appeal also presented whether alleged evidentiary errors required reversal and whether defendant could appeal the denial of his Rule 41(b) motion after presenting evidence.

Rule

In a bench-tried DVPO proceeding, appellate review asks whether competent evidence supports the findings of fact and whether the conclusions of law are proper in light of those facts; supported findings are binding on appeal. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-1(a)(2), domestic violence includes placing an aggrieved party in fear of continued harassment that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress, and the inquiry is subjective rather than objectively reasonable. A protective order may include restraints such as no-contact, stay-away, and firearm-purchase prohibitions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3 if domestic violence is found, but firearm surrender and permit suspension under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-3.1 require the statute's specific findings. A party who offers evidence after denial of a Rule 41(b) motion waives appellate review of that denial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After a bench hearing in Raleigh, Dana Mercer obtained a domestic violence protective order against her former boyfriend, Eli Rowan. Dana testified that Eli twice waited outside her apartment complex and trailed her car for several miles, while Eli flatly denied both incidents; the trial judge expressly found Dana more credible.

If Eli appeals arguing only that his denial should have been believed over Dana's testimony, how should the appellate court most likely rule?

Explanation. In a bench-tried DVPO proceeding, the appellate court asks whether competent evidence supports the findings and whether the conclusions of law follow from those findings. Where the testimony of the protected party constitutes competent evidence, the trial court's findings are binding on appeal, and the trial judge's credibility determinations are given great deference. A mere conflict between witnesses does not justify reversal. (Derived from Jarrett v. Jarrett (n.d.).)