Ferina v. Howard
| Decision Date | 21 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 4344,4344 |
| Citation | 285 So.2d 805 |
| Parties | Julius F. FERINA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Marion O. White, White & Pitre, Opelousas, for defendant-appellant.
Garland & DeJean by Harry B. Garland, Opelousas, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FRUGE , CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Plaintiff appellee Julius F. Ferina seeks to dismiss the suspensive appeal of defendant appellant Edward Howard, on the grounds that there can be no suspensive appeal taken in forma pauperis. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5185. Ferina also complains that Howard has not timely paid the cost of preparing the record on appeal and the filing fee required by the appellate court as set out in LSA-C.C .P. Art. 2126 and LSA-R.S. 13:4445.
Insofar as the appeal purports to suspend the judgment, it is set aside. Code of Civil Procedure, Article 5185, specifically denotes that there can be no suspensive appeal in forma pauperis.
However, since the order granting Howard's appeal in forma pauperis was signed within the delay allowed for a devolutive appeal, the appeal will be maintained as a devolutive appeal. Bass v. Service Pipe Trucking Co., Inc., 267 So.2d 63 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1972). This is true notwithstanding the fact that the motion and order for the suspensive appeal failed to mention a devolutive appeal. Jackson v. Hannie, 225 So.2d 385 (La.App.3rd Cir., 1969). If for lack of some requirement an appeal cannot stand as suspensive, it will nevertheless be treated as a devolutive appeal, if it meets the requirements of a devolutive appeal. Lakeside Rambler Sales, Inc., v. Durad Corporation, 228 So.2d 745 (La.App.4th Cir., 1969) and cases cited therein.
With regard to mover's contention that Howard has failed to pay certain other cost required to perfect his appeal, LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5185 relieves a pauper of the necessity of paying in advance the cost of preparing the record for appeal, and LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5185 relieves him of paying the cost of lodging the record on appeal.
For the reasons assigned the suspensive appeal in the instant case is dismissed, but the appeal is maintained as a devolutive appeal.
Suspensive appeal dismissed; appeal maintained as a devolutive appeal.
We granted plaintiff Julius F. Ferina's application for rehearing to reconsider our decision maintaining defendant Edward Howard's forma pauperis appeal as a devolutive appeal. Ferina contends that his motion to dismiss the appeal should be sustained. In the application for rehearing Ferina contended, for the first time, that the trial court did not sign an order declaring Howard to be a pauper and authorizing him to proceed in forma pauperis. We reject Ferina's contention and maintain the appeal as a devolutive appeal.
In the trial court defendant Howard timely filed for a new trial after Ferina's motion for summary judgment was granted. Immediately following the trial court's denial of Howard's motion for a new trial, Howard filed a motion styled 'MOTION FOR SUSPENSIVE APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS'. In this motion Howard alleged he was a pauper within the meaning of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5181 and attached his own affidavit together with an affidavit by two others that he was unable to pay costs or to give bond for costs. Howard concluded his petition with a prayer '. . . that he be permitted to appeal this matter in forma pauperis, without paying the cost of court which has accrued thus far or which may accrue hereafter, or posting an appeal bond.' Attached to the petition and affidavits was the following order:
ORDER FOR SUSPENSIVE APPEAL
The foregoing Motion and Affidavits considered, IT IS ORDERED that a suspensive appeal be granted to EDWARD HOWARD, returnable to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal on the 2nd day of July, 1973. Opelousas, Louisiana, this 4 day of May, 1973.
Ferina then moved in the trial court to traverse the forma pauperis order. The trial judge refused to hear the matter on finding that he no longer had jurisdiction.
Although the trial court's May 4, 1973 order contains no declaration of Howard's right to proceed in forma pauperis, we find that the trial court specifically authorized Howard to proceed in forma pauperis. The May 4th order refers to the foregoing motion and affidavits and allows the appeal. The foregoing motion and affidavits primarily dealt with Howard's status as a pauper within the meaning of LSA-C.C.P. Art. 5181, and the prayer sought permission to proceed as a pauper. The order granted the appeal and, in effect, allowed it in forma pauperis.
Our decision denying Ferina's motion to dismiss the appeal is reinstated and made our final judgment.
Defendant Edward Howard appeals from a summary judgment granted to plaintiff Julius F. Ferina. Ferina had filed a petitory action seeking to be recognized as owner of ten acres which was being possessed by Howard. We reverse the summary judgment on finding a genuine issue of material fact and remand the case for trial on the merits.
Ferina attached five affidavits to his motion for summary judgment together with numerous documents representing Ferina's chain of title and those recorded documents which reflect Howard's title to land adjoining the disputed tract. It appears that Howard holds record title to three or four acres in Section 20, Township 4 South, Range 7 East, St. Landry Parish, and that Ferina holds record title to the East half of Section 21--4--7. The disputed 10 acre tract appears to be located in Section 21--4--7.
Several of Ferina's affiants deposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter's Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Franklin
...1st Cir.1980); Allstate Insurance Company v. Louisiana Gas Service Company, 340 So.2d 698 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976); Ferina v. Howard, 285 So.2d 805 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1973).2 If Carter's had "arranged" the loans for the Franklins with the Bank, and had not guaranteed payment of them, then it co......
-
Toups v. Hawkins
...against grant of the motion and in favor of trial on the merits. Odom v. Hooper, 273 So.2d 510, 515 (La.1973); Ferina v. Howard, 285 So.2d 805, 808 (La.App. 3d Cir.1973). In particular, "It is not enough that the court has grave doubt that the party alleging a cause can sustain his contenti......
-
Bourgeois v. Jordan
...879 (La.1977); cf. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)." We said in Ferina v. Howard, 285 So.2d 805, at page 808 (La.App. 3 Cir.1973), on remand, 316 So.2d 835 (La.App. 3 "Summary judgment is not a substitute for trial on the merits. Litigants are......
-
Landry v. Brandy
... ... Pel State Oil Co., Inc., La.App., 332 So.2d 286; George & George, Ltd. v. Bennett, La.App., 329 So.2d 793; Ferina v. Howard, La.App., 285 So.2d 805; Metoyer v. Aetna Insurance Company, La.App., 278 So.2d 847; Glass v. Vista Shores Club, La.App., 221 So.2d 304; ... ...