Shannon Jean Hofmeister v. George Carl Hofmeister, Jr.

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-189

SHANNON JEAN HOFMEISTER

VERSUS

GEORGE CARL HOFMEISTER, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20122200
HONORABLE DAVID BLANCHET, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

George Robinson Knox
Attorney at Law
117 W. Convent St.
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 264-9083
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Shannon Jean Hofmeister

George Carl Hofmeister, Jr.
63374 Old Military Road
Pearl River, LA 70452
(337) 296-9333
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
In Proper Person

GENOVESE, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellee, Shannon Jean Hofmeister, moves to dismiss the appeal of

defendant-appellant, George Carl Hofmeister, Jr., as abandoned. For the reasons

assigned, we dismiss the appeal with prejudice at defendant’s cost.

Following entry of a final judgment in this community property case,

defendant filed an appeal. The record in this appeal was lodged with this court on

May 15, 2016.

This court issued briefing notices to the parties informing defendant that his

appellate brief must be filed by April 11, 2016. On April 8, 2016, defendant filed a

request for an extension of time to file his brief, and this court granted a ten-day

extension, making the brief due on April 21, 2016. Having still not received a

brief from defendant and having received no additional request for an extension of

time to file a brief, on April 26, 2016, this court issued a thirty-day notice of

abandonment pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–8.6,

informing defendant that if his appellate brief was not filed by May 26, 2016, his

appeal would be dismissed as abandoned.

Defendant hand-delivered his appellate brief to this court on June 2, 2016.

On June 6, 2016, this court received plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal as

abandoned pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–8.6.

Defendant filed a pro-se letter in response to the motion to dismiss, but cites

no statutory or jurisprudential authority that would support his position. Instead,

defendant asserts that the dismissal of his appeal will result in various injustices

occurring.

In a cover letter that defendant hand-delivered to this court when he filed his

untimely appellate brief, he offered the following reasons for why he could not file

his brief timely:

Problems beyond the defendant’s control have been occurring
all month and were intensified by daytime job duties, weather and
then ultimately an overheated printer failure on the evening before
deadline with absolutely no funds remaining after paying required
fees for supplemental records.

We find defendant’s excuses to be of no avail to him. An appellant’s failure

to file a brief within the thirty-day time period provided in the notice of

abandonment results in the appeal being dismissed as abandoned, even if the

appellant files a brief after that time delay has expired but before the actual order

of dismissal has been issued. See LaFrance v. LaFrance, 15-508 (La.App. 5 Cir.

2/17/16), 186 So.3d 797, and Holmes v. Montz, 09-55 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/14/09), 15

So.3d 255. Accordingly, we grant plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this appeal as

abandoned with prejudice at defendant’s cost. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal,

Rule 2–8.6, La.Code Civ.P. arts. 561, 2162, and 2165.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

2