242 N.C. App. 236
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff and Defendant met in April 2014, dated for less than three weeks, and Plaintiff ended the relationship on May 1, 2014, telling Defendant to stop contacting her.
- After the breakup Defendant repeatedly called, texted, and left voicemails for Plaintiff despite her requests to cease and a police directive to stop; Plaintiff filed a police report and later a verified complaint for a domestic violence protective order (DVPO).
- Detective Wright obtained a stalking arrest warrant and Defendant was arrested in early June; after release Defendant left a voicemail saying, “you put me through hell. Now it’s your turn.”
- At the August 4, 2014 hearing Plaintiff testified she was "very afraid," that Defendant’s contacts caused anxiety, sleeplessness, work disruption, and avoidance of places she used to frequent.
- The trial court found a dating relationship existed, concluded Defendant’s post-breakup contacts were harassment causing substantial emotional distress, entered a DVPO prohibiting contact and ordering surrender of firearms; Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parties were in a "dating relationship" under N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(b)(6) | The short-term romantic involvement (less than three weeks) nonetheless amounted to a dating relationship supporting a DVPO | Relationship too brief to qualify as a "dating relationship" under the statute | Court affirmed: a dating relationship can be short-term; use a multi-factor, fact-specific inquiry and evidence supported the finding |
| Whether Defendant placed Plaintiff in fear of continued harassment rising to substantial emotional distress (N.C.G.S. § 50B-1(a)(2)) | Repeated, unwanted communications after clear requests to stop, police directive, and an alarming voicemail caused Plaintiff substantial emotional distress | Plaintiff presented only one voicemail’s content at trial; insufficient evidence of harassing intent or substantial distress | Court affirmed: subjective fear standard applies; combined evidence (repeated contacts, police action, hostile voicemail, Plaintiff’s symptoms) supported finding of harassment causing substantial emotional distress |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensey v. Hennessy, 201 N.C. App. 56 (appellate standard: findings supported by competent evidence control)
- Frye Regional Medical Center v. Hunt, 350 N.C. 39 (statutory interpretation—give plain meaning; use dictionary where undefined)
- In re N.T., 214 N.C. App. 136 (use dictionary/ordinary meaning when statute lacks context)
- O & M Industries v. Smith Eng. Co., 360 N.C. 263 (remedial statutes construed broadly to effect legislative purpose)
- Burgess v. Brewing Co., 298 N.C. 520 (statutory language interpreted contextually to give effect to purpose)
- Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252 (advocating a multi-factor approach to determine a "dating relationship")