When Third-Party Complaints Become Harassment in North Carolina

When you hear of someone committing an act of domestic violence, what do you imagine? A physical confrontation? A threat? While that is often the reality, it might not always be the full picture.

An estimated 10 million people experience domestic violence in the United States every year, and for many of them, the abuse doesn’t look the way they expected.

That’s especially true if the behavior is indirect. It might be a constant cycle of complaints, false accusations, reports to third parties, or pressure to destabilize a person’s life from afar. A person may try to inflict harm in this way instead of threats or physical contact.

That’s exactly what was at issue in Honacher v. Uhlhorn, and it raises an important question about where the law draws the line when it comes to Domestic Violence Protective Orders.

Background of Honacher v. Uhlhorn

When a relationship ends, many people assume the worst is behind them. But for some, that’s when things can actually get worse. As many as 90% of women report ongoing harassment, stalking, or abuse after separating from an abusive partner.

And much of the time, that abuse is not direct confrontation, but pressure from afar.

This is how Catherine Honacher depicted reality after her relationship with Michael Uhlhorn came to an end. The two had once shared a home in North Carolina and after their split they began fighting over property, money, and personal possessions.

Honacher claimed Uhlhorn continually harassed her by calling government agencies, realtors, and other third parties about property she owned, placed liens on her properties, filed reports about her to agencies, and even threatened to foreclose. This behavior, Honacher says, caused anxiety, loss of sleep, and financial harm.

The trial court sided with Honacher and issued a DVPO against Uhlhorn. The order prohibited him from harassing her, contacting third parties in relation to her property, posting about her on social media, coming within 1,000 feet of her, and was ordered to surrender his firearms for the length of the order.

So Uhlhorn appealed.

What the Court of Appeals Considered

One of Uhlhorn’s arguments was that the trial court did not have personal jurisdiction over him because he moved out of North Carolina years ago. But the Court of Appeals said he waived that argument by not properly raising it in his initial response to the case.

He also argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Honacher was not a resident of North Carolina. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument as well. The court observed that he had stipulated earlier that she was a resident of Orange County, North Carolina. Much of the alleged conduct also targeted her North Carolina property.

The question was whether Uhlhorn’s conduct was the sort of harassment that would be covered by North Carolina’s domestic violence laws.

The Court of Appeals said yes.

Does the Third-Party Contact Count as Domestic Violence?

Uhlhorn argued that he wasn’t directly contacting Honacher, and that reaching out to third parties on property issues wasn’t a direct attack on her.

Except that the court explained that communications to third parties may still be “directed at” a person if the goal was to induce some kind of action against that person.

Basically, harassment does not always require direct messages to the victim.

The trial court found that Uhlhorn contacted third parties for the purpose of harassing Honacher. The Court of Appeals said the record supported that finding.

The court also rejected Uhlhorn’s argument that his actions served a legitimate purpose. While he claimed he was reporting property concerns, the trial court was allowed to consider the broader pattern of conduct, including the repeated complaints, accusations, and financial pressure.

And so, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DVPO, concluding that Uhlhorn placed Honacher in fear of continued harassment that rose to the level of substantial emotional distress.

Why This Case Is Important

Honacher v. Uhlhorn illustrates the variety of harassment that can happen in a domestic violence case.

This case specifically showed that the full pattern of behavior is what’s most important, that those who face repeated complaints or accusations, property-related pressure, or indirect harassment after a relationship ends, are entitled to protections.

If you’re worried about harassment, or if you are involved in a family law dispute with a former partner, Woodruff Family Law Group can help you get the protection you need.