4858 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Ardoin v. Ardoin

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Filed January 15, 1975 · 306 So. 2d 476

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., February 23, 1972 258 So. 2d 412; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., June 30, 1959 114 So. 2d 88

Cited by

Jones v. Natchitoches Parish Police Jury 371 So. 2d 1243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
State v. White 358 So. 2d 999 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
Boothe v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF ELECTIONS, ETC. 341 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
Major v. Louisiana Department of Highways 327 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Cook v. Cook 320 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

State Ex Rel. Preston v. Henderson 283 So. 2d 230
State v. Ward 259 La. 317
Schwegmann v. Parker 249 So. 2d 921
Spinato v. Lowe 239 La. 604
Simon v. Calvert 289 So. 2d 567
Evangeline Downs, Inc. v. Pari-Mutuel Clerks' Union 191 So. 2d 358

Opinion text

306 So.2d 476 (1975) Gloria ARDOIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dudley ARDOIN, Defendant-Appellee. No. 4858. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. January 15, 1975. *477 W. Glenn Soileau, Ville Platte, for plaintiff-appellant. Guy O. Mitchell, III, Ville Platte, for defendant-appellee. Before FRUGÉ, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ. FRUGÉ, Judge. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment maintaining an exception of lis pendens. On January 16, 1974, the plaintiff, Gloria Ardoin, filed a petition for divorce from her husband, Dudley Ardoin, on the grounds of adultery (case No. 28,270). The husband reconvened for a divorce based on his wife's adultery. Later, on August 13, 1974, while the divorce action was still pending, the wife instituted this action (case No. 28,952) for a separation on grounds of intentional non-support. In response to this petition for separation the defendant filed an exception of lis pendens which the trial court sustained. But in sustaining the exception the trial court reserved to plaintiff the right to amend her petition in the divorce action and pray for the relief requested in the separation action. On October 4, 1974, the day after the exception of lis pendens was sustained, plaintiff did amend her petition in the divorce action to include the allegations and prayer made in the separation action. It is the jurisprudence of this state that "[c]ourts will not rule on questions of law which become moot since their decree will serve no useful purpose and can give no practical relief." State ex rel. Preston v. Henderson, 283 So.2d 230, 231 (La. 1973); State v. Ward, 259 La. 317 , 249 So.2d 921 (1971); Spinato v. Lowe, 239 La. 604 , 119 So.2d 480 (1960); Simon v. Calvert, 289 So.2d 567 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1974); Evangeline Downs, Inc. v. Pari-Mutuel Clerks' Union, 191 So.2d 358 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1966). We are of the opinion that the question of whether the trial judge properly sustained defendant's exception of lis pendens is moot. All of the allegations made by plaintiff in the suit (No. 28,952) for separation are now before the court in the divorce action (No. 28,270). A judgment by us on the exception of lis pendens would serve no useful purpose and grant no practical relief. The appeal is therefore dismissed at plaintiff-appellant's cost. Appeal dismissed.