Rudder v. Rudder, 234 N.C. App. 173

On 23 Nov 2010 Elizabeth Rudder obtained an ex parte domestic violence protective order (DVPO) against her husband William Rudder after she alleged physical assaults, threats with a gun, and a fractured rib. The court ordered surrender of firearms.
A hearing to determine continuation of the ex parte DVPO was scheduled for 6 Dec 2010; the case was repeatedly continued (≈13 continuances) with form orders stating the ex parte order was continued in effect.
The ex parte DVPO remained in effect through serial continuances until it expired on 4 June 2012 when no further continuance or renewal was entered.
After expiration, Rudder sought a one-year DVPO based on the same original complaint; the trial court held hearings in Aug–Sept 2012 and entered a one-year DVPO on 28 Sept 2012.
Defendant appealed both the 23 Nov 2010 ex parte DVPO and the Sept 2012 one-year DVPO. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ex parte order but vacated the Sept 2012 DVPO and remanded for return-of-firearms proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the ex parte DVPO findings sufficient to support the conclusion that defendant committed domestic violence and that there was danger of future acts?	The ex parte order and complaint together supplied specific facts showing assault, threats with a gun, and a broken rib.	The form order lacked the required specific factual findings and contained clerical errors (unchecked box), so it was insufficient.	The court held the evidence and form findings (Findings 2 and 4 read together, and the complaint) were minimally sufficient; the unchecked box was a clerical error to be corrected on remand.
Could the trial court enter a one-year DVPO in Sept 2012 based on the original complaint after the ex parte order had expired on 4 June 2012 (after >1 year in effect by continuances)?	Rudder asked the court to enter a one-year DVPO based on the earlier conduct alleged in the original complaint.	Rudder argued the Sept 2012 order was invalid because the ex parte order had expired and no timely motion to renew the protective order had been filed before expiration.	Court held it lacked authority to enter the one-year DVPO after the ex parte order expired beyond the statutory time limits; vacated the Sept 2012 DVPO and remanded for firearms return proceedings.

Smith v. Smith, 145 N.C. App. 434, 549 S.E.2d 912 (N.C. Ct. App.) (expired DVPO appeals are not moot because of collateral legal and reputational consequences)
Hensey v. Hennessy, 201 N.C. App. 56, 685 S.E.2d 541 (N.C. Ct. App.) (ex parte DVPOs need not meet full Rule 52 detail; complaint may supply specific facts)
Burress v. Burress, 195 N.C. App. 447, 672 S.E.2d 732 (N.C. Ct. App.) (standard of review for findings and conclusions)
State v. Jarman, 140 N.C. App. 198, 535 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. Ct. App.) (definition and examples of clerical error)
In re D.D.J., D.M.J., 177 N.C. App. 441, 628 S.E.2d 808 (N.C. Ct. App.) (clerical mistakes on preprinted forms)
State v. Smith, 188 N.C. App. 842, 656 S.E.2d 695 (N.C. Ct. App.) (remand appropriate to correct clerical errors in orders)