Ronald Shelton Hatsfelt v. Annette R. Wyble Hatsfelt

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 13-286

RONALD SHELTON HATSFELT

VERSUS

ANNETTE R. WYBLE HATSFELT

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ALLEN, NO. 2011318
HONORABLE PATRICIA C. COLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY

JUDGE

**********

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

APPEAL DISMISSED.

William Howard Collier
Ringuet, Daniels & Collier
Post Office Box 52647
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 232-0002
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Annette R. Wyble Hatsfelt

D. Reardon Stanford
Hoyt & Stanford
315 S. College, Suite 165
Lafayette, LA 70503
(337) 234-1012
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Ronald Shelton Hatsfelt

KEATY, Judge.

The instant suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellee, Ronald Shelton Hatsfelt,

against the defendant-appellant, Annette R. Wyble Hatsfelt, seeking the rescission

of the donation of a house from the appellee’s father, Ronald Vernon Hatsfelt

(Hatsfelt), to the appellant on February 17, 2005. The house was previously a part

of the community property between Hatsfelt and his first wife, the appellee’s

mother, Lessie Oliver Hatsfelt, and was awarded to Hatsfelt by a judgment in the

divorce proceedings pursuant to a written stipulation between the parties. The

donation of the house to the appellant, however, was executed after the date of the

judgment awarding the house to the donor but before appellate delays had run.

Hatsfelt passed away on June 18, 2010.

On July 14, 2011, the appellee filed a petition to declare the donation a

nullity, to rescind the donation, and/or for damages, asserting that Hatsfelt had not

yet acquired his first wife’s one-half interest in the house at the time he donated the

house to the appellant. On December 21, 2012, the trial court signed a partial final

judgment where it granted the appellee’s motion for summary judgment, finding

the donation of the house absolutely null and rescinding the donation as to an

undivided one-half interest in the property. The trial court also reserved other

matters, including damages, for further proceedings. From this ruling, the

appellant seeks review on appeal.

On March 25, 2013, a rule to show cause was issued by this court, ordering

the appellant to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal should not be dismissed

as having been taken from a non-appealable, partial judgment. A brief was

subsequently received by this court, wherein the appellant argues that the ruling

disposes of the entire action. We find, however, that the trial court’s ruling is a

partial judgment as evidenced by the reservation of other matters in both the

appellee’s motion for summary judgment and the express words of the appealed

judgment. Also, the ruling was not designated as a final judgment by the trial court.

Accordingly, pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(B), we find that the appeal was

taken from a non-appealable judgment; thus, we hereby dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

2