Frank L. Maxie, Et Ux. v. Harmie Maxie

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 12-1240

FRANK L. MAXIE, ET UX.

VERSUS

HARMIE MAXIE, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 63,115
HONORABLE STEPHEN BRUCE BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and John E. Conery,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

William Daniel Dyess
Dyess Law Firm, LLC
207 Church Street Suite
Natchitoches, LA 71457
(318) 352-5880
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Frank L. Maxie
Jacqueline Maxie

Jeffrey Howerton Thomas
Thomas Law firm
Post Office Box 2177
Natchitoches, LA 71457-2177
(318) 352-6455
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS:
Harmie Maxie
Learlean Hudson
Mary Joe Coutee

PICKETT, Judge.

A final judgment was rendered in this case on June 25, 2012. The clerk of

court’s office for the district court sent notice of the rendition of judgment to

counsel on June 26, 2012. The defendant, Harmie Maxie, filed a motion for new

trial on July 5, 2012. By judgment signed July 6, 2012, the trial court denied

defendant Maxie’s motion for new trial as untimely filed.

The defendant Maxie filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory writs from

the denial of the motion for new trial with the trial court. The writ application was

filed in this court on August 31, 2012. Meanwhile, the defendant Maxie filed a

motion for a devolutive appeal from the final judgment of June 25, 2012. The

record in this appeal was lodged in this court on October 26, 2012.

On November 30, 2012, this court entered judgment on the writ application.

In this judgment, this court ruled that the motion for new trial had been timely filed.

Therefore, this court set aside the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial

and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Thus, this court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the defendant Maxie to

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing La.Code

Civ.P. art. 2087(D), due to the pending motion for new trial. This court received a

letter from counsel for defendant Maxie stating that the motion for new trial has

been set for hearing. Since there is an extant motion for new trial, we hereby

dismiss the instant appeal as premature. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(D). Assessment

of the costs for this appeal is to await further proceedings.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.