Rutherford Plantation, LLC v. The Challenge Golf Grp., 12-1305

Rutherford Plantation sold the Cleghorn golf facility to Challenge Golf Group (CGG) in June 2010; plaintiff financed $4,000,000 via a promissory note secured by a purchase-money deed of trust. CGG later defaulted on payments.
On the day of sale CGG granted additional loans and security: Grace Creek loaned $650,000 secured by equipment; Challenge Golf Group of South Carolina (CGSC) made/secured a $120,000 loan later resulting in transfer of a condominium to CGSC on default.
Plaintiff sued CGG in May 2011 to collect on the promissory note; cross-claims and multiple motions followed, including partial summary judgment for Plaintiff in November 2011.
CGG appealed the partial-summary-judgment orders (notice of appeal filed December 2011 and record filed May 31, 2012). After that notice, Plaintiff sought and obtained leave to add CGSC and Grace Creek as defendants and asserted additional claims; CGSC and Grace Creek moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The trial court denied those dismissal motions on May 10, 2012. CGSC and Grace Creek appealed. The Court of Appeals held that because CGG had already perfected an appeal, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to enter the post-appeal orders and therefore vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to allow amendment and rule on jurisdictional motions after an appeal was perfected	Plaintiff contended the trial court could grant leave to amend and decide non-merits motions	Defendants argued the appeal by CGG divested the trial court of jurisdiction, so subsequent orders were void	The Court held the appeal perfected by CGG divested the trial court of jurisdiction; post-appeal orders were entered without authority and were vacated
Whether the Court of Appeals should decide the merits of CGSC and Grace Creek’s personal-jurisdiction challenge	Plaintiff implicitly asked the appellate court to affirm the trial court’s denial on the merits	Defendants sought reversal of the denial for lack of personal jurisdiction	The Court did not reach the merits because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the orders; the proper remedy was vacatur and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion

Faulkenbury v. Teachers’ & State Emp. Ret. Sys., 108 N.C. App. 357 (N.C. Ct. App.) (an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction)
Swilling v. Swilling, 329 N.C. 219 (N.C.) (an appeal is perfected when docketed; perfection relates back to notice)
Ross v. Ross, 194 N.C. App. 365 (N.C. Ct. App.) (trial court retains only limited jurisdiction to aid the appeal after perfection)
Reid v. Town of Madison, 145 N.C. App. 146 (N.C. Ct. App.) (perfection relates back to notice; proceedings after notice may be void)
State v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173 (N.C.) (when record shows lack of lower-court jurisdiction, appellate court must vacate orders entered without authority)
Harris v. Fairley, 232 N.C. 555 (N.C.) (trial court lacks authority to amend pleadings while case is pending on appeal)