Comments on: Is Kenton Retroactive? http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=3530 UNC School of Government Blog Fri, 17 May 2013 17:25:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: NC litigator http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=3530&cpage=1#comment-8900 NC litigator Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:11:03 +0000 http://sogweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/ncclaw/?p=3530#comment-8900 What about the argument that Kenton and Bryant both just call attention to what the statute has always said? The 50B statute has always required that a finding that an act of domestic violence occurred is required before a court can issue a DVPO (50B-3(a)). The language of the statute is unambiguous, but was somehow simply ignored in all these “no findings consent DVPOs.” Bryant and Kenton just served as reminders to heed the statute.

It seems pretty clear the in cases where the courts made no findings of fact, there was never jurisdiction to enter the DVPOs and they are void, whether they were issued before or after Kenton.

]]>