State v. Cortez, 215 N.C. App. 576

A warrant issued for Elder G. Cortez for kidnapping, rape, and taking indecent liberties with a child; three appearance bonds were posted on 16 September 2008 by sureties Atkinson, Barnes, and Lowry in amounts of $10,000, $20,000, and $570,000.
Cortez failed to appear at a February 18, 2009 hearing; the Clerk issued bond forfeiture notices to the three sureties, setting July 23, 2009 as the final judgment date unless motions to set aside were filed.
Sureties filed motions to set aside the forfeitures on July 22, 2009; neither the District Attorney nor the Board objected; the Clerk set aside the forfeitures on August 3, 2009; the trial court affirmed on October 12, 2009.
The Board appealed the October 12, 2009 order on November 10, 2009; Cortez I (unpublished) held the Clerk lacked authority to set aside the forfeiture because the grounds were not those authorized by statute.
Defendant again failed to appear for a November 2, 2009 date; the Clerk issued forfeiture notices for a second time; Sureties moved to dismiss and set aside forfeiture in April 2010, which the trial court denied after Board objection.
The issue on appeal is whether the November 10, 2009 appeal divested the Clerk and the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed on the 16 September 2008 bonds, and whether the Sureties are liable for the forfeitures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the November 10, 2009 appeal divest the Clerk and court of jurisdiction?	Board contends new matters arising after the appeal are permissible.	Sureties contend jurisdiction was divested and proceedings on the 16 September 2008 bonds should not continue.	Yes; appeal divested jurisdiction as to the 16 September 2008 bonds.
Are the Clerk's August 3, 2009 and the trial court's October 12, 2009 actions valid after divestiture?	Board argues the actions were proper under the statute.	Sureties argue the actions were premature or unauthorized post-appeal.	Actions were vacated due to lack of jurisdiction following appeal.
Are the Sureties liable for one or two forfeitures given the appeal and the bonds they actually executed?	Board contends liability for the forfeitation on the second missed appearance.	Sureties contend they are liable only for the bonds they executed, not for a second forfeiture.	Sureties liable only for the 16 September 2008 bonds; cannot be charged for a second forfeiture.

State v. Buckom, 126 N.C.App. 368, 485 S.E.2d 319 (1997) (appeal stays proceedings below and preserves final judgments)
In re Adoption of K.A.R., 696 S.E.2d 757 (N.C. App. 2010) (jurisdiction and abandonment concepts in appellate review)
State v. Cortez, 711 S.E.2d 876 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished appellate decision addressing similar forfeiture motion authority)