{ "id": 4364695, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARSHA LYNN WILLIAMS [International Fidelity Ins. Co., Beasley Bail Bonding Company, Inc.]", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "2012-02-07", "docket_number": "No. COA11-721", "first_page": "450", "last_page": "458", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 N.C. App. 450" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "622 S.E.2d 512", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12634526 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/622/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "641 S.E.2d 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637966 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "828", "parenthetical": "quoting Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/641/0824-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 N.C. App. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8352951 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "657" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/174/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 N.C. 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3799435 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/359/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 N.C. App. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8171018 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "247", "parenthetical": "quoting Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/182/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "603 S.E.2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "401" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N.C. App. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8413264 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670-71" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/166/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "589 S.E.2d 179", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180-81" }, { "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N.C. App. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8959285 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/161/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "677 S.E.2d 514", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517", "parenthetical": "quoting In Re Proposed Assessments v. Jefferson-Pilot, 161 N.C. App. 558, 559-60, 589 S.E.2d 179, 180-81 (2003)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. App. 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4167670 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "617", "parenthetical": "quoting In Re Proposed Assessments v. Jefferson-Pilot, 161 N.C. App. 558, 559-60, 589 S.E.2d 179, 180-81 (2003)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/197/0614-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 808, "char_count": 13742, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0393471696869426e-07, "percentile": 0.5503253278472992 }, "sha256": "4cf012e37808ee95d57332e19095c89ff746b54b1079812ba83438ee612da77d", "simhash": "1:8e6b92697d2f70f6", "word_count": 2150 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:59.538017+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ERVIN and THIGPEN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARSHA LYNN WILLIAMS [International Fidelity Ins. Co., Beasley Bail Bonding Company, Inc.]" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BEASLEY, Judge.\nInternational Fidelity Ins., Co., Beasley Bail Bonding Company, Inc. (Surety) appeals the trial court\u2019s final judgment granting it partial relief. For the following reasons, we affirm.\nOn 4 September 2009, Marsha Lynn Williams (Defendant) was charged with operating a motor vehicle while subject to an impairing substance, and operating a vehicle with an open container of alcoholic beverages after drinking. Surety executed a $1,500.00 appearance bond on behalf of Defendant. On 10 March 2010, Defendant failed to appear, Defendant\u2019s bond was forfeited, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. On 22 March 2010, a bond forfeiture notice was issued. The forfeiture became a final judgment on 19 August 2010.\nSurety paid the total forfeiture before the close of business on 19 August 2010, but continued to search for Defendant. Surety located and surrendered Defendant to the Sheriff of Craven County on 19 August 2010 at 9:40 p.m. On 20 August 2010, Surety filed a Motion to Set Aside Forfeiture and Petition for Remission. In an order filed 14 February 2011, the trial court ordered partial remission of the bond pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a715A-544.8(b)(2). On 25 February 2011, Surety filed timely notice of appeal.\nSurety argues that the trial court erred when it denied its motion to set aside the bond forfeiture order. We disagree.\n\u201c \u2018Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law, which are reviewed de novo by an appellate court. In conducting this review, we are guided by the following principles of statutory construction.\u2019 \u201d State v. Largent, 197 N.C. App. 614, 617, 677 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2009) (quoting In Re Proposed Assessments v. Jefferson-Pilot, 161 N.C. App. 558, 559-60, 589 S.E.2d 179, 180-81 (2003)). \u201cWhere the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning, and the courts are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\u201cThe exclusive avenue for relief from forfeiture of an appearance bond (where the forfeiture has not yet become a final judgment) is provided in G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.5.\u201d State v. Robertson, 166 N.C. App. 669, 670-71, 603 S.E.2d 400, 401 (2004). Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5 (b)(3) (2011), a forfeiture may be set aside when \u201c[t]he defendant has been surrendered by a surety on the bail bond as provided by G.S. 15A-540, as evidenced by the sheriff\u2019s receipt[.]\u201d If a reason to set aside forfeiture exists, then the party seeking to set aside the forfeiture must \u201c[a]t any time before the expiration of 150 days after the date on which notice was given . . . make a written motion that the forfeiture be set aside[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5 (d)(1) (2011).\nThere is no dispute about the facts of this case. Surety surrendered Defendant on 19 August 2010 to the Craven County Sheriff at 9:40 p.m. and because the court was closed, Surety filed the Motion to Set Aside forfeiture on 20 August 2010 which was outside the 150 days required under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5 (d). Surety argues that the 150 day period should not expire when the courthouse closes, but should be extended until 11:59 p.m.\nWhen calculating a period of time prescribed or allowed by statute \u201c[t]he last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday when the courthouse is closed for transactions[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 6(a) (2011). Rule 6 shows that only weekends and legal holidays are recognized as days which the statutory time limit can be automatically extended. The legislature was aware of times that the court would be closed on regular weekdays, but made no provision for how to treat weekdays after business hours. Contrary to Surety\u2019s assertion, we must assume that deadlines for filing documents with the court are subject to the hours when the court is open for business. Because the statute is clear and unambiguous, we are without authority to interpret N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.5 (d) to extend the time limits proscribed therein in the manner contended for by Surety. Therefore, Surety\u2019s argument is without merit.\nNext, Surety asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to fully remit the forfeited amount pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-544.8(b)(2) (2011).\nSurety argues that because the trial court found extraordinary circumstances warranting partial remission, remission should be in full unless the trial court makes specific findings supporting partial remission. Surety cites no authority in support of this proposition. \u201cWithout [appellant] presenting a legal basis for awarding such relief, we cannot reverse the trial court. As our Supreme Court has stressed, \u2018[i]t is not the role of the appellate courts ... to create an appeal for an appellant.\u2019 \u201d Citizens Addressing Reassignment & Educ., Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 182 N.C. App. 241, 247, 641 S.E.2d 824, 828 (2007) (quoting Viar v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005)).\nFinally, Craven County Board of Education (the Board) argues that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a partial remission where the trial court\u2019s only basis for finding extraordinary circumstances was the fact that Surety surrendered Defendant to the Craven County Sheriff. Although the Board has submitted an issue for review, this issue is not properly before us.\nThe North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appellee \u201c[w]ithout taking an appeal, . . . appellee may present issues on appeal based on any action or omission of the trial court that deprived the appellee of an alternative basis in law for supporting the judgment, order, or other determination from which appeal has been taken.\u201d N.C.R. App. 28(c). Here, the Board did not give notice of appeal and did not raise an alternative basis in law. In CDC Pineville, LLC v. UDRT of N.C., LLC, 174 N.C. App. 644, 657, 622 S.E.2d 512, 521 (2005), this Court held that\nPlaintiff\u2019s cross-assignment of error regarding the damages award is not an alternative basis, but rather constitutes an attack on the judgment itself. Plaintiff\u2019s arguments concerning the damages award attempt to show how the trial court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and do not provide an \u201calternate basis\u201d for supporting the court\u2019s award of damages. The correct method for plaintiff to have raised this question on appeal was to have raised the issue on cross-appeal.\nSimilarly, the Board attacks the trial court\u2019s grant of partial remission by arguing that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact did not support its conclusion of law. This is not an alternative basis. Therefore, we are without authority to consider the Board\u2019s argument because it failed to properly preserve the issue for appellate review.\nAffirmed.\nJudges ERVIN and THIGPEN concur.\nCASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS\n(Filed 7 February 2012)\nALLRAN v. WELLS FARGO No. 11-967 Lincoln (11CVS208) Affirmed\nBAKER v. BAKER No. 11-1010 Guilford (11CVD5329) Affirmed\nBEATTY v. JONES No. 11-414 Wake (08CVS21917) Affirmed\nBOWERS v. TEMPLE No. 11-566 Carteret (10CVS943) Affirmed\nBRAMBLETT v. BRAMBLETT No. 11-970 Forsyth (09CVD8611) Affirmed\nCAGLE v. MARRIOTT No. 11-816 Ind. Comm. (W07827) Affirmed\nCALLANAN v. WALSH No. 11-911 Transylvania ( 01CVD129) Affirmed\nCAPTRAN NEVADA CORP. v. THE KIRKLIN LAW FIRM No. 11-474 Moore (10CVS650) Affirmed\nCARAVANTES v. DOWLESS No. 11-577 Bladen (09CVD229) Vacated and Remanded\nDAVIS v. GROFF No. 11-948 Durham (10CVS3420) Affirmed\nDAVIS v. GROFF No. 11-1024 Durham (10CVS3420) Dismissed\nDELLINGER v. BARNES No. 11-792 McDowell (08CVS1006) Dismissed\nFORMYDUVAL v. YEDDO No. 11-584 Brunswick (09CVS2763) Affirmed\nGASPER v. THE BD. OF TRUSTEES OF HALIFAX CMTY. COLL. No. 11-675 Wake (08CVS15288) Affirmed\nIN RE A.S.Y. No. 11-952 Orange (08JT101) Affirmed\nIN RE K.D.C.T.J. & K.M.W.J. No. 11-1200 A ffirmed Greene (09JT46-47) Affirmed\nIN RE K.K. No. 11-1180 Forsyth (09JT166) Affirmed\nIN RE R.K No. 11-900 Buncombe (09JB95) Dismissed\nIN RE S.C.U. No. 11-550 Buncombe (09JB338) Affirmed\nIN RE S.P. No. 11-1052 Nash (11JA9) Affirmed\nIN RE T.J. No. 11-1071 Wayne (09JT110) Reversed\nIN RE V.M.F. No. 11-1166 Transylvania (09JA16) Affirmed in part reversed and part\nIN RE W.L.M. No. 11-723 Mecklenburg (07JB281) Affirmed in Part; Vacated and Remanded in Part\nIN RE Z.D.N.T. No. 11-1146 Craven (10JA14) Affirmed\nJACKSON v. ES&J ENTERPRISES, INC. No. 11-225 Columbus (09CVS1005) Affirmed\nLANE v. LANE No. 11-608 Bertie (06CVD179) Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Part\nLINGERFELT v. ADVANCE TRANSE, INC No. 11-983 Ind. Comm. (120154) (PH2200) Affirmed\nMAINLINE SUPPLY CO. v. HILLCREST CONSTR., INC. No. 11-734 Union (09CVS493) Affirmed\nMcCracken &AMICK, INC. v. PERDUE No. 11-199 Wake (10CVS3520) Affirmed\nPANOS v. TIMCO ENGINE CTR., INC. No. 11-803 Guilford (06CVS5771) Affirmed\nREMI v. TYRONE No. 11-877 Mecklenburg (10CVD22726) Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part\nSCOTCHIE v. SCOTCHIE ENTERS., INC. No. 11-828 Ind. Comm. (889041) Affirmed\nSEC. CREDIT CORP. v. MID/EAST ACCEPTANCE CORE No. 11-775 Johnston (10CVS8936) Affirmed\nSIMPSON v. ROBERTSON, No. 11-858 Mecklenburg (10CVS13429) Affirmed\nSPANISH MOSS, LLC v. WACHOVIA No. 11-510 Mecklenburg (10CVS7952) Reversed and Remanded\nSTATE v. BELL No. 11-1006 Wayne (10CRS52610) ( OCRS6001) Appeal dismissed; Petition for Writ of Certiorari denied\nSTATE v. BOYD No. 11-562 Halifax (07CRS53267) Dismissed\nSTATE v. BROWN No. 11-528 Moore (09CRS52522) Affirmed\nSTATE v. COX No. 11-742 Sampson (10CRS51955) No Error\nSTATE v. DAVIS No. 11-960 Gaston (08CRS14067-70) (08CRS61770-72) Affirmed\nSTATE v. DAVIS No. 11-694 Guilford (09CRS79347) (09CRS80159-60) (09CRS80162) (09CRS80164) (09CRS80165-66) No Error\nSTATE v. FEW No. 11-902 Transylvania (08CRS52222) (08CRS52224) (09CRS168) No Error\nSTATE v. FULLWOOD No. 11-1054 Buncombe (09CRS56018-20) (09CRS56022) No Error\nSTATE v. GAMBLE No. 11-842 Edgecombe (10CRS50734-35) No Prejudicial Error\nSTATE v. GRIER No. 11-1015 Cleveland (09CRS54858) No Prejudicial Error\nSTATE v. HAQQ No. 11-993 Burke (10CRS51132) No Error\nSTATE v. HARRIS No. 11-987 Harnett (09CRS51973) (10CRS525) Affirmed\nSTATE v. HUDSON No. 11-444 Mecklenburg (09CRS201239) (09CRS35624) No Error\nSTATE v. HUNTER No. 11-478 Durham (10CRS51613) Affirmed\nSTATE v. JOHNSON No. 11-898 Mecklenburg (10CRS204377-78) (10CRS20518) No Error\nSTATE v. KAHLEY No. 11-394 Craven (05CRS53027) No Error\nSTATE v. KELLY No. 11-887 Buncombe (10CRS700243) Vacated in Part and Remanded for Resentencing.\nSTATE v. MILLER No. 11-1161 Buncombe (08CRS55739) Affirmed\nSTATE v. MILLS No. 11-442 Mecklenburg (09CRS218250) (09CRS218252) No Error\nSTATE v. NEEDHAM No. 11-892 Lincoln (09CRS52250) (09CRS52252-54) No error in part; vacate in part\nSTATE v. NETTLES No. 11-638 New Hanover (10CRS10172) (10CRS57913) (10CRS58745) No Error\nSTATE v. OAKS No. 11-463 Mecklenburg (08CRS255465-67) (08CRS255469-70) No Error\nSTATE v. ORE No. 11-1033 Pitt (10CRS5340) (10CRS54713) (10CRS54893) No prejudicial error.\nSTATE v. PARKER No. 11-939 Duplin (10CRS51330) Reversed and Remanded\nSTATE v. ROGERS No. 11-907 Lenoir (09CRS52095) (11CRS204) Affirmed\nSTATE v. SPEARMAN No. 11-991 New Hanover (10CRS57271) Affirmed\nSTATE v. SPRUILL No. 11-430 Martin (99CRS2182) No prejudicial error\nSTATE v. STEWART No. 11-985 Union (07CRS53732) (08CRS6448) No Error\nSTATE v. SWARTZ No. 11-872 Surry (07CRS53598-99) (07CRS53600-601) No Error\nSTATE v. SWINSON No. 11-557 Pitt (10CRS53476-77) No Error\nSTATE v. TYSON No. 11-855 Beaufort (09CRS754-755) No prejudicial error\nSTATE v. WEBSTER No. 11-862 Onslow (10CRS51270) (10CRS51543) No Error\nTHORNTON v. STUCKEY No. 11-508 Johnston (09CVS1636) No Error\nTOWN OF LELAND v. HWW, LLC No. 11-210 Brunswick (07CVS2440) Affirmed", "type": "majority", "author": "BEASLEY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "White & Allen, P.A., by Brian J. Gatchel, for Appellee Craven County Board of Education.", "Greene & Wilson, P.A., by Kelly L: Greene and Thomas Reston Wilson for Appellant Surety." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARSHA LYNN WILLIAMS [International Fidelity Ins. Co., Beasley Bail Bonding Company, Inc.]\nNo. COA11-721\n(Filed 7 February 2012)\n1. Sureties \u2014 bond forfeiture \u2014 motion to set aside \u2014 untimely filed\nThe trial court did not err in a bond forfeiture case when it denied the bond surety\u2019s motion to set aside a bond forfeiture order. As deadlines for filing documents with the court are subject to the hours when the court is open for business, surety filed the motion to set aside forfeiture outside the 150 days required under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.5 (d).\n2. Sureties \u2014 bond forfeiture \u2014 partially remitted \u2014 abuse of discretion \u2014 no legal authority cited\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a bond forfeiture case by failing to fully remit the forfeited amount to the bond surety pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-544.8(b)(2). Surety cited no authority for its argument that because the trial court found extraordinary circumstances warranting partial remission, remission should be in full unless the trial court makes specific findings supporting partial remission.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 argument not alternate basis to support order \u2014 failure to cross-appeal\nAppellee failed to preserve for appeal its argument in a bond forfeiture case that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a partial remission. Appellee\u2019s argument did not provide an alternate basis for supporting the trial court's order and appellee did not raise the issue on cross-appeal.\nAppeal by Surety from order entered 14 February 2011 by Judge Cheryl Spencer in Craven County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 December 2011.\nWhite & Allen, P.A., by Brian J. Gatchel, for Appellee Craven County Board of Education.\nGreene & Wilson, P.A., by Kelly L: Greene and Thomas Reston Wilson for Appellant Surety." }, "file_name": "0450-01", "first_page_order": 460, "last_page_order": 468 }