Doolan v. Doolan
Decision Date | 29 August 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 6310,6310 |
Citation | 349 So.2d 980 |
Parties | Charles L. DOOLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Yvonne Pellerin DOOLAN, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Alvis J. Roche, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.
Nathan A. Cormie and Ronald J. Bertrand, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellee.
Before CULPEPPER, GUIDRY and FORET, JJ.
The defendant-appellee, Yvonne Pellerin Doolan, moves to dismiss the devolutive appeal of the plaintiff-appellant, Charles L. Doolan, on the grounds that the plaintiff-appellant did not timely move for an appeal. The appeal has not yet been lodged in this court.
We dismiss the appellant's appeal.
Judgment was read and signed in this matter in favor of the defendant-appellee on April 25, 1977, and on May 2, 1977 the plaintiff timely filed a motion for a new trial. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial was heard on May 13, 1977, and immediately after the arguments the trial court denied the appellant's motion, and caused a minute entry to be made to that effect. Both counsel for the appellant and appellee were present at the hearing on the motion, and at the announcement of the judgment.
On July 19, 1977, 67 days after the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, the plaintiff moved for and was granted a devolutive appeal to this court. The plaintiff did not file his appeal bond until August 2, 1977, which was 81 days following the denial of the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
Article 2087 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, that devolutive appeals must be taken, and security furnished, within 60 days from the court's refusal to grant a timely application for a new trial, if the appellant is not entitled to notice of such refusal under Article 1914.
Article 1914 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:
Art. 1914. "When a case has been taken under advisement by the court for the purpose of deciding whether an interlocutory order or judgment should be rendered, the clerk shall make an entry in the minutes of the court of any such interlocutory order or judgment rendered thereafter.
In his opposition the appellant argued that in accord with LSA-C.C.P. 1914 he filed a request for notice of judgment with the clerk by letter dated April 29, 1977, and since no notice of the judgment denying his motion for a new trial was ever sent to him, his time in which to perfect his appeal did not begin to run until July 19, 1977, the date he filed his motion for appeal.
Assuming the appellant's letter of April 29, 1977, constituted a request for notice, the appellant is in error as to his interpretation as to LSA-C.C.P. 1914. The cited article has no application except in cases taken under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Warren v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc.
...this article was originally enacted, to pertain solely to interlocutory rulings that have been taken under advisement. Doolan v. Doolan, 349 So.2d 980 (La.App. 3 Cir.1977). While Article 1914 was amended subsequent to this court's opinion in Doolan in order to require the mailing of notice ......
-
Daniel v. Daniel
...of an interlocutory judgment was required to be sent only when a party had filed a written request for notice. Doolan v. Doolan, 349 So.2d 980 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977). Thus, as in the instant case, when a motion for new trial was denied ex parte and no request for notice was made, the appeal......
-
In re
...in Code of Civil Procedure Article 1913. In certain cases, a notice of judgment is unnecessary as explained in Doolan v. Doolan, 349 So.2d 980, 982 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1977):As to a motion for new trial which is not taken under advisement, the jurisprudence is well settled that no notice of jud......
-
Carr v. City of New Orleans
...and not taken under advisement, Carr was not entitled to the ten day notice required in La.C.Civ.P. art. 1914. Doolan v. Doolan, 349 So.2d 980, 982 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1977). Carr also argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether D......