Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)

By Rebecca Watts 

Angarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)

Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

On appeal, defendant argued the trial court (1) misquoted her in its findings, (2) acted with undue hostility against her, (3) improperly amended the 50C order, (4) erred in ordering a mental health assessment, and (5) erred in failing to consider her motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order, addressing defendant’s arguments as follows: (1) The trial court found that “in open court defendant stated ‘plaintiff smells’ and does so while in her yard at plaintiff and plaintiff’s family.” Defendant did not speak those exact words in court, but made several very similar statements (such as “I smelled a bad smell when I passed by plaintiff’s open garage door” and “my house stinks like skunks from you and your people, you stinky criminal”), and it is not error for the trial court to paraphrase.

(2) The trial court has broad discretionary power concerning how to conduct a trial. The trial court did interrupt defendant in her presentation of evidence, but did so “in the interests of expediency and to bring a pro se defendant into compliance with the rules of evidence.”

(3) Rule 60(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows a Judge to sua sponte correct clerical mistakes in an order. Here, the amendment of the order to check an additional box in the decree was an amendment of a clerical mistake as opposed to a substantive change.

(4) 50C-5(b)(7) allows the trial court to include in its no contact order provisions for “other relief deemed necessary and appropriate . . .” This provision does not give the court unfettered authority but does allow the court to include additional provisions concerning the party’s actions in relationship to the plaintiff – so long as defendant’s fundamental rights are not abridged. A single mental health evaluation addressed defendant’s acts in relation to plaintiff, does not exceed the scope of the trial court’s authority and does not abridge any of her fundamental constitutional rights.

(5) Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, but did not serve it upon plaintiff, so the trial court did not err in refusing to consider it. Defendant could have made an oral motion to dismiss and could have been heard on that but did not do so.