Lindley Scott Holleman v. Natalie Louise Barrilleaux

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 18-1008

LINDLEY SCOTT HOLLEMAN

VERSUS

NATALIE LOUISE BARRILLEAUX

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 122476
HONORABLE VINCENT JOSEPH BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Shannon J. Gremillion and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Edward Paul Landry
Attorney at Law
211 East Main Street
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 364-7626
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Lindley Scott Holleman

Jack Derrick Miller
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1650
Crowley, LA 70526
(337) 788-0768
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Natalie Louise Barrilleaux

Nicole B. Breaux
Attorney at Law
415 N. Parkerson Ave.
Crowley, LA 70527-1650
(337) 783-0888
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Natalie Louise Barrilleaux

COOKS, Judge.

Upon the lodging of the record in this appeal, this court, on its own motion, issued

a rule for the Plaintiff-Appellant, Lindley Scott Holleman, to show cause, by brief only,

why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing Egle v. Egle, 05-531

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780. The Plaintiff filed a brief with this court. For

the reasons assigned, we dismiss this appeal.

The trial court signed a judgment in this domestic suit on June 25, 2018, and

notice of this judgment was sent by the district court to the parties on July 5, 2018. On

July 12, 2018, the Plaintiff timely filed a motion for new trial. Attached to this motion

for new trial was a proposed order for the trial judge to sign setting the motion for

contradictory hearing. Instead of granting this order, a handwritten notation appears

over the document reading, “Denied.” The trial judge signed this denial of the rule to

show cause order on July 19, 2018, and a certification appears at the bottom of this

document indicating that a copy of this ruling was sent to all counsel of record on July

26, 2018.

The Plaintiff filed a motion for devolutive appeal on or about August 1, 2018,

and the trial court signed the order granting the appeal on August 3, 2018. As stated

above, upon receipt of the record in this appeal, this court issued the subject rule for the

Plaintiff to show cause why this appeal is not filed prematurely.

In the Plaintiff’s brief, he attempts to distinguish the facts of the instant case from

those present in Egle, 923 So.2d 780. To the contrary, we find that the pertinent facts

of these two cases are identical. As in Egle, the trial court in the instant case did not

deny the motion for new trial following a contradictory hearing, and the only order

issued by the trial court on the matter merely denied the rule setting the motion for

hearing. Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in Egle, we find that the appeal in this

case was filed prematurely because there has been no ruling by the trial court on the

motion for new trial in violation of La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(D). Therefore, we hereby

dismiss this appeal, without prejudice. This matter is remanded for further proceedings

in accordance with this court’s ruling herein.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

2