Guillory v. Hartford Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 7653,7653 |
| Citation | 383 So.2d 144 |
| Parties | Stafford GUILLORY et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Donald R. Wilson, Marksville, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Gist, Methvin, Hughes & Munsterman, H. B. Gist, Jr., and Mike S. Poche, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.
Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and LABORDE, JJ.
An ex proprio motu order was issued herein by the court directing appellants, Stafford Guillory and Sandra Guillory, to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely file the appeal.
The trial court signed judgment denying appellants' motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 28, 1979. Appellants did not move for a new trial. On November 7, 1979, appellants filed a motion for devolutive appeal, which motion was signed by the trial judge on the same day.
The delay for taking a devolutive appeal is governed by C.C.P. art. 2087 which provides, in part, that a devolutive appeal must be taken within 60 days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial.
The delay for applying for a new trial is seven days, exclusive of legal holidays. The delay commences the day after judgment is signed, when no notice of judgment is required. C.C.P. art. 1974.
In the instant case, judgment was signed on August 28, 1979. The delay for applying for a new trial expired on Tuesday, September 7, 1979. Therefore the 60 day devolutive appeal period commenced on September 8, 1979, and expired on Tuesday, November 6, 1979.
Appellants' motion for devolutive appeal was untimely filed on November 7, 1979. It is well settled by the jurisprudence that appellate courts do not acquire jurisdiction of an appeal which is not timely perfected. Something Irish Co. v. Rack, 333 So.2d 773 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976).
Appellants admit that the motion for appeal was not filed within 60 days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial, but contends that the filing was not untimely because he had applied for supervisory writs which were denied by this court on October 28, 1979. Appellants contend that the time for filing an appeal was suspended until this court denied their application for supervisory writs. We disagree.
C.C.P. art. 2201 provides that supervisory writs may be applied for and granted in accordance with the constitution and rules of the Supreme Court and other courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuart v. Cooper Tire and Rubber Co., 88
...appeal are not interrupted by applications for writs. See Jones v. Jones, 393 So.2d 281 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980); Guillory v. Hartford Ins. Co., 383 So.2d 144 (La.App. 3d Cir.1980). However, those cases involved denials of writs, not grants of writs, to parties who had lost on the merits and ......
-
Phillips v. Exxon Chem. La.
...clearly establishes that the filing of an application for supervisory writs does not suspend the running of the delay for an appeal. In Guillory, trial court signed a judgment denying plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis on August 28, 1979. On November 7, 1979, plaintiffs filed a......
-
Barker v. Plattsmier
...(La. App. 1 Cir. 5/6/11), 64 So.3d 883, 885-86, writ denied, 2011-1169 (La. 9/16/11), 69 So.3d 1149 ; Guillory v. Hartford Ins. Co., 383 So.2d 144, 145 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1980). The instant appeal therefore must be dismissed as untimely. This memorandum opinion is issued in compliance with Un......
-
Irvin v. Grower
...lapsed. Also, it is well settled that an application for supervisory writs does not extend appeal delays. Guillory v. Hartford Insurance Company, 383 So.2d 144 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980); Carmadelle v. Urrate, 359 So.2d 708 (La.App. 4th Cir. For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal at appellan......