7295, 7296 Precedential Dismissed Processed

Springlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pecot

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit · Filed October 9, 1975 · 321 So. 2d 789

The holding in the court’s own words

Since the only matter before the court was the preliminary injunction, we conclude that those words only apply to the preliminary injunction and, so concluding, the appeal herein should be dismissed.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Nola Bourbon, LLC v. Rodriguez-Franco 243 So. 3d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Reasonover v. LASTRAPES 40 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon 7 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Louisiana Service & Contracting Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Government 1 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Marlbrough v. Zar 713 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
Bayou Hunting Club of Hunter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury 569 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
City of New Orleans v. Elms 498 So. 2d 773 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Commissioner of Agriculture v. Transylvania Flying Service 493 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
WHITNEY NAT. BANK v. Poydras Center Assoc. 468 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985
Bartlett v. Doctor's Hospital of Tioga, Inc. 415 So. 2d 635 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
State Ex Rel. Guste v. City of New Orleans 363 So. 2d 678 La. 1978
Southwest Sales and Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Delta Exp., Inc. 342 So. 2d 281 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher 264 So. 2d 674
Fox v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 223 So. 2d 707
Baton Rouge Cigarette Service v. Bloomenstiel 88 So. 2d 742
Kar Products, Inc. v. Robison 303 So. 2d 261
Parish of Jefferson v. Universal Fleeting Company 234 So. 2d 88
Cloud v. Dyess 172 So. 2d 528
Olsen v. City of Baton Rouge 247 So. 2d 889
Pizzitola v. Pace 161 So. 2d 441
Discon v. Saray, Inc. 255 So. 2d 489
Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc. 258 La. 311

Opinion text

321 So.2d 789 (1975) SPRINGLAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Charles J. PECOT. SPRINGLAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Yvette Pecot, wife of and Ronald J. MILAZZO. Nos. 7295, 7296. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit. October 9, 1975. Guste, Barnett & Colomb, Dennis C. Strayhan, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant. Monroe & Lemann, Herman C. Hoffmann, Jr., New Orleans, for Yvette Pecot, wife of/and Ronald J. Milazzo, defendants-appellees. Before SAMUEL, LEMMON and BOUTALL, JJ. BOUTALL, Judge. On the Motion to Dismiss. Appellant, Spring Lake Homeowners Association, Inc., has filed an appeal from an *790 adverse judgment of the Civil District Court "dismissing the injunction prayed for herein at their cost. All other demands are hereby dismissed." The appellees have filed a Motion to Dismiss, based upon the ground that the judgment appealed from was rendered in connection with the hearing for a preliminary injunction, and the appeal is not timely, because not within the period of 15 days from the date thereof as provided by LSA-CCP Article 3612. Appellant's position is that the appeal was timely taken as a devolutive appeal from a judgment on the merits and call attention to the wording which, they contend, dismisses the merits of the suit. We agree that the judgment is ambiguous, and could lead to an interpretation that it dismissed all demands in the law suit. Under this interpretation, we would dismiss the appeal insofar as it concerned itself with the preliminary injunction matters, but grant the appeal insofar as it related to dismissal of the merits. Pier 1 Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher, 264 So.2d 674 (La.App.1st Cir. 1972). However the record in this case shows only that the matter tried before the court was a rule nisi for a preliminary injunction, and there was no stipulation between the parties that such a hearing would also be considered as a hearing on a permanent injunction. We have considered a somewhat similarly worded judgment in the case of Fox v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 223 So.2d 707 (La.App.4th Cir. 1969), and concluded that the injunction only applied to matters heard on the preliminary injunction. We are led to a similar result herein for the following reasons. A judgment denying a writ of preliminary injunction does not conclude the proceedings. The action remains pending in the trial court until the proceedings are dismissed by stipulation of the parties or by judgment of the court after full trial on the merits of the permanent injunction. Baton Rouge Cigarette Service v. Bloomensteil, 88 So.2d 742 (La.App.1st Cir. 1956); see generally Kar Products Inc. v. Robison, 303 So.2d 261 (La.App.2d Cir. 1974); Jefferson Parish v. Universal Fleeting Company, 234 So.2d 88 (La.App.4th Cir. 1970); Cloud v. Dyess, 172 So.2d 528 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1965). Indeed, a trial court which denies a preliminary injunction is without power to order dismissal of the action therewith. Olsen v. City of Baton Rouge, 247 So.2d 889 (La.App.1st Cir. 1971); Pizzitola v. Pace, 161 So.2d 441 (La.App.4th Cir. 1964); Discon v. Saray, Inc., 255 So.2d 489, 492 (La.App.1st Cir. 1971). The validity of the judgment of the trial court should be presumed, and it should not be given an interpretation which would make it invalid. Hence an interpretation which concludes that the "injunction" and the "demands" refer to the permanent injunction and the demands on the merits would cause the invalidity of the judgment. Since the only matter before the court was the preliminary injunction, we conclude that those words only apply to the preliminary injunction and, so concluding, the appeal herein should be dismissed. Fox v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, supra. Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc., 258 La. 311 , 246 So.2d 183 (1971). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is maintained, the appeal is dismissed and this matter is remanded to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be appropriate on the merits of the case. Costs to await a final determination of the merits. Motion sustained; appeal dismissed.