Butler v. Cantrell
Decision Date | 29 December 1993 |
Docket Number | No. 93-CA-2535,93-CA-2535 |
Citation | 630 So.2d 852 |
Parties | Idena BUTLER and Joan Butler v. Harry CANTRELL, Jr., et al. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Milton Osborne, Jr., New Orleans, for plaintiffs/appellants.
Henry P. Julien, Jr., Julien & Julien, New Orleans, for defendants/appellees.
Sheri Marcus Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, for defendants/appellees.
Before LOBRANO, JONES and WALTZER, JJ.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered on December 22, 1993 by the Honorable Robert A. Katz, Judge of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, dismissing with prejudice the petition of Idena Butler and Joan Butler (Butlers). The Butlers sought to disqualify defendants-appellees Harry Cantrell, Jr., Julius C. Feltus and Horace Batiste, who had previously qualified as candidates for the position of Assessor of the First Municipal District for the City of New Orleans, in the election to be held on February 5, 1994. The Butlers alleged that these defendants were not qualified to stand for election to the position of First Municipal District Assessor because at the time of qualification they were not residents of that District.
The matter came on for hearing before Judge Katz on December 21 and 22, 1993, was taken under submission, and the judgment appealed from herein was signed on December 22, 1993. Cantrell, Feltus and Batiste moved to dismiss the appeal, alleging that the plaintiffs' appeal bond was untimely filed, and that the surety, whom they allege to be a licensed attorney, is disqualified by law from serving in that capacity.
The record of the trial proceedings was lodged in this Court after 4:00 p.m. on December 27, 1993, and oral argument was heard at 2:00 p.m. on December 28, 1993.
Cantrell, Feltus and Batiste urge this Court to dismiss the Butlers' appeal, alleging that the judgment was rendered at 3:00 p.m. on December 23rd and the appeal bond was not filed until 3:16 p.m. on December 24th, sixteen minutes beyond the twenty-four hours allowed for perfection of appeal.
The record does not show the exact time at which the judgment was rendered, and defendants apparently rely on an oral representation made out of court by an unidentified member of the Civil District Court clerical staff. We find the defendants have failed to prove that the appeal bond was untimely filed. Were the bond filed sixteen minutes tardily, we do not believe the late filing to be material to the case. We find this delay to be analogous to that relied on unsuccessfully by the petitioner in Mix v. Alexander, 318 So.2d 130 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975). There, petitioner sought to strike defendant's answer, which was required to be filed within forty-eight hours of the filing of the original petition. LSA-R.S. 18:396. We find the court's reasoning to be applicable in the case at bar:
While the record does not contain a return showing the date and time of service of the petition on the defendant, even assuming the answer was filed several hours later than the permissible forty-eight hours as is indicated by counsel, we are of the opinion that the late filing is immaterial in this case. A reading of the statute in its entirety convinces us the intent of the legislature regarding the time limitations was to shorten the delays allowed for instituting judicial proceedings in election matters and to provide for their necessary rapid and expeditious consummation. We find nothing in the statute to indicate the forty-eight hour limit within which to file an answer is jurisdictional. 318 So.2d at 133-134.
We are unable to determine from the record that the bond surety is an attorney and disqualified by law from serving as surety. Cantrell, Feltus and Batiste have failed to offer evidence to support their motion to dismiss by reason of the nullity of the appeal bond.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion of Harry Cantrell, Julius Feltus and Horace Batiste to dismiss the appeal of Idena Butler and Joan Butler is denied.
We find that the evidence of record amply supports the well reasoned factual conclusions set forth in the trial court's reasons for judgment. Absent manifest error, we adopt these findings of fact and accept the trial court's determinations of credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing below. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Canter v. Koehring Company, 283 So.2d 716 (La.1973). The trial judge found the following facts applicable to each of the three defendants:
The qualifications of candidates for the position of tax assessor in the Parish of Orleans are set out in the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Article 7 § 24(B):
1
The Election Code provides for the time at which a candidate must meet the qualification requirements of the office he seeks:
"... Except as otherwise provided by law, a candidate shall possess the qualifications for the office he seeks at the time he qualifies for that office. ..." LSA R.S. 18:451.
The Butlers allege that the various habitations of Cantrell, Feltus and Batiste fall short of the "residence" required by our state Constitution. In seeking to thwart the candidacy of these citizens, the Butlers bear the burden of proving that each defendant is disqualified from seeking the Assessor's office. The Louisiana Supreme Court sets a high standard for the Butlers:
Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679 (La.1991).
The facts surrounding the individual residencies of each of the three candidate-defendants differ significantly.
The sole ground for Batiste's disqualification is the transposition of the numbers of his municipal address as shown on his statement of candidacy, i.e., 1916 rather than 1619 Baronne Street. We believe Justice Tate's opinion in Roe v. Picou, 361 So.2d 874, 878 (La.1978) to be dispositive of this issue:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sellar v. Nance
...denoting the acquisition of a residence, is sufficient. Sealy v. Brown , supra ; Walsh v. Rogillio , supra ; Butler v. Cantrell , 630 So. 2d 852 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), writ denied , 631 So. 2d 431 (La. 1994). Domicile and residency, for purposes of an election contest, present issues of fa......
-
Walsh v. Rogillio
...Code provides for the time at which a candidate must meet the qualification requirements for the office he seeks. Butler v. Cantrell, 630 So.2d 852, 855 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), writ denied, 94-0003 (La.1/5/94), 631 So.2d 431. Louisiana Revised Statute 18:451 states in pertinent part, "Except ......
-
Sealy v. Brown
...coupled with physical actions denoting the acquisition of a residence, is sufficient. Walsh v. Rogillio, supra ; Butler v. Cantrell , 630 So. 2d 852 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993), writ denied , 631 So. 2d 431 (La. 1994) ; Soileau, supra . Courts must be cognizant of the realities of modern life, i......
-
Smith v. Goins
... ... Kershenstine, 97-210, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/27/97), 690 So.2d 247, 250, writ denied, 97-545 (La.3/14/97), 689 So.2d 1390 (citing Butler v. Cantrell, 630 So.2d 852 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), writ denied, 631 So.2d 431 (La.1994)) ... The specific inquiry before us in this ... ...