Holliday v. Holliday
| Decision Date | 28 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2000 CA 0533.,2000 CA 0533. |
| Citation | 797 So.2d 774 |
| Parties | Frances Broussard HOLLIDAY v. James S. HOLLIDAY, Jr. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
On Appeal from The Family Court Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana Docket No. 103,363, Division "A." Honorable Jennifer Luse, Judge Presiding.
Robert M. Hoyland, Amy E. Counce, Baton Rouge, for Plaintiff-Appellant Frances Broussard Holliday.
James Don Thomas, II, Baton Rouge, for Defendant-Appellee James S. Holliday, Jr.
Before: PARRO, FITZSIMMONS, GUIDRY, KLINE, and CLAIBORNE, JJ.1
We grant a rehearing without oral argument for the limited purpose of clarifying and amending our judgment to correct a factual discrepancy.
Mr. Holliday applied for a rehearing alleging, among other things, that this court's determination that, $13,000 is past due does not account for an extra payment made by him. Specifically, our judgment ordered Mr. Holliday to pay Mrs. Holliday $13,000, plus interest, but did not apply a credit for an additional lump-sum payment, the "fill-in-the-gap" payment, that he made to Mrs. Holliday several months before trial. We agree that such a credit is due, and that the judgment must be amended to provide credit for that payment.2
As noted in footnote six of this court's original opinion, the record is not clear concerning the exact amount of this extra payment, considering Mr. Holliday's claim that it sufficed to bring his total payments to $52,000, in which case it would have to have been a payment of $2200. However, Mrs. Holliday testified that Mr. Holliday paid her $1700 in the summer of 1999, several months before the trial. Although there is no positive evidence in the record contradicting her testimony concerning the amount of that payment, the evidence of Mr. Holliday's other payments creates some question concerning the amount of the credit that should be applied against our judgment. Accordingly, the matter will be remanded to the trial court to receive evidence concerning the additional payment and to determine, based on that evidence, the amount of the credit to be applied against this court's judgment.
This court's judgment of August 17, 2001, is hereby amended. Mr. Holliday is ordered to pay Mrs. Holliday $13,000, plus interest as specified in the original judgment, subject to a credit to be determined by the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court for the sole purpose of receiving evidence and determining the amount of said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boudreaux v. Jeff
...Holliday v. Holliday, 00-0533 (La. App. 1st Cir.8/17/01), 795 So.2d 423, 428, amended on rehearing on other grounds, 00-0533 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/28/01), 797 So.2d 774. This case is all about credibility—and the lack of it. From the oral reasons of the trial judge, it is clear that he listene......
-
Day v. Day
...Holliday v. Holliday, 00-0533 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/17/01), 795 So.2d 423, 428, amended on rehearing on other grounds, 00-0533 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/28/02), 797 So.2d 774. In McCarroll v. McCarroll, 96-2700 (La.10/21/97), 701 So.2d 1280, 1286, parol evidence was allowed to clarify an ambiguity in......
-
Williams v. Williams
...Holliday, 2000-0533 (La.App. 1st Cir.8/17/01), 795 So.2d 423, 429, amended in part on other grounds on rehearing, 2000-0533 (La.App. 1st Cir.9/28/01), 797 So.2d 774. However, without a proffer, appellate courts have no way of ascertaining the nature of the excluded evidence. McLean, 495 So.......
-
Sanders v. Silverthorn
... ... Holliday v. Holliday, 00-0533, p. 6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/17/01), 795 So.2d 423, 428, amended on reh'g on other grounds, 00-0533 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/28/01), 797 ... ...