Stephanie Nicole Disatell v. Lance D. Smith

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 21-282 and CA 21-283

STEPHANIE NICOLE DISATELL

VERSUS

LANCE D. SMITH

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 256,049
HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY H. EZELL

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, John E. Conery, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE GRANTED.

E. Grey Burnes Talley
Talley & Talley, L.L.P.
711 Washington Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 448-0482
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Stephanie Nicole Disatell

Candace Wells-Losavio
Losavio Law Office, L.L.C.
Post Office Box 14377
Alexandria, LA 71315
(318) 528-8808
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Lance D. Smith

EZELL, Judge.

Appellant, Stephanie Nicole Disatell, has filed a Motion to Consolidate the

appeal in docket number 21-282 with docket number 21-283. For the reasons

discussed herein, we grant the motion to consolidate.

Appellant asserts that the appeals involve common issues of law and fact in

Civil Docket No. 256,049 of the Ninth Judicial District Court. Further, Appellant

contends that the ends of justice would be best served by the consolidation of the

two appeals for all purposes.

In opposition, Appellee, Lance D. Smith, argues that the two appeals involve

separate issues, and the standards of review are totally different. Appellee explains

that one judgment results from an oral stipulation recited into the record in open

court and the other results from an actual hearing that took place with the judge

rendering her ruling from the bench. As such, Appellee maintains that Appellant’s

request for consolidation should be denied.

We find that the two judgments at issue stem from Appellee’s Rule to Modify

Physical Custody and Other Incidentals in Judgment, Rule for Contempt and Other

Relief filed on March 16, 2020. The Judgment at issue in docket no. 21-282

addresses custody and child support issues whereas the Ancillary Judgment at issue

in docket no. 21-283 addresses child support issues. The issues in both judgments

stem from the care and custody of the parties’ minor child. Accordingly, we find

that judicial economy would be served with the consolidation of these two appeals.

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE GRANTED.

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