260 N.C. App. 88
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- On May 23, 2017 Veronica Russell filed a Chapter 50C complaint (stalking / nonconsensual sexual conduct) and requested an ex parte temporary and a permanent no-contact order; the complaint made no allegations about firearms or threats of physical violence.
- A temporary no-contact order issued and a hearing was set for June 2, 2017; both parties attended and defendant was represented by counsel.
- At the June 2 hearing plaintiff did not mention firearms; defendant testified he owned a firearm, was a former FBI agent/retired police officer and had a concealed-carry authorization.
- The trial court entered a permanent no-contact order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50C-7, including standard prohibitions, and added (in the “Other” box) a handwritten provision ordering defendant to surrender firearms to the county sheriff, revoking his concealed-carry permit for the order’s duration, and prohibiting purchase/possession of firearms while the order remained in effect.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court exceeded its Chapter 50C authority by ordering surrender/restriction of firearms; he did not directly challenge the factual findings supporting the no-contact order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Chapter 50C no-contact order authorizes a court to order surrender of firearms, revoke concealed-carry, or bar purchase/possession of firearms | Russell sought standard no-contact relief (visited, contacted, stalk, etc.); she did not request firearms relief and made no gun-related allegations | Wofford argued the court exceeded Chapter 50C authority by ordering surrender/restriction of firearms and revocation of concealed-carry without statutory basis, notice, or findings | Court held Chapter 50C does not authorize such firearm-related orders; reversed and remanded as to those provisions |
| Whether the no-contact order (aside from firearm provisions) was supported by findings and should stand | Russell presented evidence of nonconsensual sexual conduct and sought the order | Wofford disputed the substance but conceded the evidence could support the trial court’s findings | Court affirmed the remainder of the no-contact order (findings/conclusions supported) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Elder, 368 N.C. 70 (N.C. 2015) (limits on DVPO catch‑all relief; court may not order law enforcement to conduct searches or impose remedies beyond statutory authority in a protective order)
- State v. Largent, 197 N.C. App. 614 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Tyll v. Willets, 229 N.C. App. 155 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (Chapter 50C provides for no-contact orders where parties are not in a Chapter 50B personal relationship)