GATES v. GATES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 13178.

Attorney(S)

Hudson, Potts Bernstein by James A. Rountree, Monroe, for defendant-appellant. Charles E. Joiner, West Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff-appellee Julius E. Gates sought a separation; defendant-appellant Nina Gates appealed the denial of that separation. The judgment denying appellant a separation was signed and filed on September 9, 1976. No notice of judgment was required, and no application for a new trial was filed. The appeal bond was not filed until November 9, 1976—after the thirty-day period for perfecting an appeal had expired. After a preliminary review, this court notified appellant of a probable lack of jurisdiction for failure to timely perfect the appeal and ordered appellant to show cause. Appellant's response conceded that, under uniform state jurisprudence, this court lacked jurisdiction. The court dismissed the appeal at appellant's costs.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal when the appeal was not timely perfected (i.e., whether the late filing of the appeal bond, after the thirty-day period, mandates dismissal).

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court concluded it likely lacked jurisdiction because the appeal was not timely perfected. It explained: the judgment was filed September 9, 1976; no notice of judgment or new-trial application extended the appeal period; the thirty-day period for perfecting the appeal expired before the appeal bond was filed on November 9, 1976. The court relied on the applicable procedural rule LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3942 concerning the timeliness requirement for perfecting appeals. Because appellant conceded the jurisdictional defect after the court's show-cause order, the court dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: The appeal was dismissed for failure to timely perfect and was dismissed at appellant's costs. The opinion does not announce any broader precedential holding beyond the application of the governing procedural rule.

Show full summary ...

JULIUS E. GATES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NINA GATES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PER CURIAM.

After a preliminary review of the record this court notified appellant, through counsel, of a probable lack of jurisdiction due to failure of the appellant to timely perfect the appeal and ordered the appellant to show cause within ten days why the appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant's response conceded that under the uniform jurisprudence in this state this court lacks jurisdiction in the instant case.

The judgment denying appellant a separation was signed and filed on September 9, 1976. Notice of judgment was not required and there was no application for a new trial. The appeal bond was not filed until November 9, 1976, after the thirty-day period for perfecting the appeal had expired. See LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3942. Since the appeal was not timely perfected, it is dismissed at appellant's costs.

Appeal dismissed.