Domestic Violence Protective Orders and Fact-Finding Duties: Lessons from Jay v. Jay

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently issued a divided opinion in Jay v. Jay, affirming a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) despite challenges to the sufficiency of the trial court’s findings and evidence. The case highlights the balance between protecting victims and ensuring trial courts properly carry out their fact-finding responsibilities under Rule 52 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background of the Case
– Parties: Yanli Jay (plaintiff) sought a DVPO against her husband, Gary Wayne Jay (defendant).
– Marriage and separation: The couple married in 2016 and separated in 2022.
– Allegations: Plaintiff alleged multiple incidents of sexual assault and emotional abuse, including on March 28, April 2023, May 2, and May 9, 2023. She testified that defendant forced sex against her will, injured her physically, and demeaned her with insults like “idiot” and “moron.”
– Evidence: Plaintiff submitted a typewritten statement detailing the abuse and a text message exchange. Defendant denied the assaults, describing consensual encounters and efforts at reconciliation.

The trial court found by the greater weight of the evidence that defendant committed acts of domestic violence, including second-degree rape, and entered a one-year DVPO effective August 17, 2023.

Disputed Evidence
Defendant later moved to set aside the DVPO, arguing plaintiff altered the text message evidence. At a post-trial hearing, the court acknowledged the exhibit was “not completely accurate” but concluded there was no willful attempt to mislead, and that “ample evidence” still supported the DVPO.

The Appeal
On appeal, defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support the DVPO because the trial court improperly incorporated the plaintiff’s typewritten statement as findings of fact and relied on altered evidence.

The majority disagreed:
– The Court emphasized that appellate review asks whether competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, and whether those findings support the legal conclusions under Chapter 50B.
– Plaintiff’s testimony and written statement, even without the disputed text exhibit, were sufficient to establish acts of domestic violence.
– Trial courts are in the best position to judge credibility, and their fact-finding is given great deference on appeal.

Thus, the DVPO was affirmed.

The Dissent
Judge Carpenter dissented, warning that the trial court failed to comply with Rule 52, which requires courts in civil bench trials to make their own findings rather than adopt a party’s allegations wholesale. He argued:
– Incorporating plaintiff’s unverified written statement as “findings” improperly delegated the fact-finding duty.
– Altered text evidence further undermined the reliability of the record.
– Without independent findings, appellate courts cannot meaningfully review whether the law was correctly applied.

The dissent would have vacated the DVPO and remanded for proper findings.

Key Takeaways
1. DVPOs require careful fact-finding. Courts must make specific findings of fact based on evidence presented, not simply adopt a party’s allegations.

2. Credibility matters. Trial courts’ assessments of witness credibility carry heavy weight on appeal.

3. Altered or incomplete evidence raises risks. While the DVPO was upheld here, presenting inaccurate exhibits can threaten credibility and appellate stability.

4. Split opinions signal caution. The dissent highlights growing scrutiny of how trial courts document findings in DVPO cases, especially when liberty interests are at stake.

Final Thoughts
Jay v. Jay demonstrates both the strength and the limits of protective order law in North Carolina. While the majority affirmed the DVPO to safeguard the plaintiff, the dissent underscores the importance of courts making independent, detailed findings to preserve fairness and appellate review. For litigants and attorneys, the case is a reminder that accuracy, credibility, and clear records are critical in domestic violence litigation.

About Adkins Law, PLLC
At Adkins Law, PLLC, based in Huntersville, North Carolina, we focus on family law matters including domestic violence protective orders, custody, and support. Our firm provides experienced guidance to ensure your rights are protected and that the law is applied fairly. If you are facing issues related to DVPOs, custody, or family disputes, contact Adkins Law to discuss your options.