In Re: The Interdiction of Willard D. Hamilton, Jr.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 19-423

IN RE: THE INTERDICTION OF

WILLARD D. HAMILTON, JR.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 51692
HONORABLE JOHN C. REEVES, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

PHYLLIS M. KEATY

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and Jonathan W. Perry,
Judges.

MOTION GRANTED. APPEAL DISMISSED.

William A. Yarbrough
Attorney At Law
109 Carter St.
Vidalia, LA 71373
(318) 715-3006
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:
Willard D. Hamilton, Jr.

Christie C. Wood
Wilson & Wilson
Post Office Box 1346
Jena, LA 71342
(318) 992-2104
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
Rosemary Hamilton Sweeney

KEATY, Judge.

Appellee, Ms. Rosemary Sweeney, moves to dismiss the appeal filed by appellant,

Willard D. Hamilton, Jr., as untimely filed. For the reasons assigned, we grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal.

The judgment of interdiction which has been appealed in this case was signed by

the trial court on January 30, 2019. Notice of judgment was mailed that same day.

Appellant filed his motion and order for appeal on March 15, 2019.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 4555 provides, in pertinent part, “An

appeal from a judgment of interdiction . . . shall be taken within thirty days from the

applicable date provided by Article 2087.” In this case, no motion for new trial was

filed, and the delays for filing a motion for new trial expired on February 8, 2019.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 1974. Therefore, the delay for filing a motion for appeal expired

on March 11, 2019.1

This court has stated:

[T]he defect of not taking an appeal timely is jurisdictional, and neither
counsel, the trial court, nor the appellant court has the authority to extend
this delay. Hawkins v. Shropshire, 275 So.2d 821 (La.App. 4 Cir.1973).
This rule has been uniformly applied, even to a judgment arising in the
context of a juvenile matter. State in Interest of Johnson v. Johnson, 303
So.2d 617 (La.App. 4 Cir.1974) (wherein the appellate court held that the
appeal was untimely even though the appellants argued that they had been
mislead into not filing a timely appeal by the stay orders granted by the
appellate courts).

State ex rel. E.A., 02-996, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d 594, 596.

Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the appeal in this matter at appellant’s cost.

MOTION GRANTED. APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

1
Thirty days from February 8, 2019, was March 10, 2019, which is a Sunday. Therefore, the
delay for seeking the appeal expired on the next business day, Monday, March 11, 2019. La.Code
Civ.P. art. 5059.