Kennedy v. Morgan, 221 N.C. App. 219

Kennedy filed a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against Morgan on June 17, 2011.
A July 28, 2011 hearing was chaotic and evidence was inconsistently applied under NC rules.
Morgan had hired a private investigative service to monitor whether Kennedy was co-habiting, to potentially affect alimony.
The DVPO was entered July 29, 2011 based on a finding that Morgan’s actions caused Kennedy fear and substantial emotional distress.
Morgan appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence and the conduct constituting a DVPO under NC General Statutes §50B-1(a)(2) and §50B-3(a).
The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the DVPO, holding the evidence did not establish a proper act of domestic violence or harassment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was competent evidence to show fear of continued harassment rising to substantial distress	Kennedy asserted ongoing harassment and fear from Morgan's conduct.	Morgan contended there was no harassment meeting statutory harm and no act of DVPO.	DVPO reversed; no harassing act established.
Whether Morgan’s PI surveillance constitutes an act of domestic violence	Kennedy relied on surveillance as harassment toward her.	Surveillance for alimony purposes did not constitute harassment with no legitimate purpose.	Not an act of domestic violence; harassment not shown.
Whether the court erred by basing DVPO on a vague 'history of abuse' without identifying an act	History of abuse was relied upon to justify DVPO.	History alone should support the DVPO if connected to recent acts.	History of abuse insufficient without an act; require ultimate facts supporting DVPO.

Hensey v. Hennessy, 201 N.C.App. 56 (2009) (competent-evidence standard for DVPO findings)
In re Estate of Mullins, 182 N.C.App. 667 (2007) (ultimate facts required to support conclusions of law)
Smith v. Smith, 145 N.C.App. 434 (2001) (conduct must place plaintiff in fear of bodily harm; mere discomfort not enough)