State of Louisiana v. Sloane Roberts

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

18-164

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

SLOANE ROBERTS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 09-N-749
HONORABLE GREGORY AUCOIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
SHANNON J. GREMILLION

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Shannon J. Gremillion, Phyllis M. Keaty, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

MOTION GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.

Edward Moses, Jr.
Moses Law Firm, LLC
2900 Westfork Drive, Suite 401
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70827
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Sloane Roberts

Shane E. A. Romero, Jr.
Law Office of Shane E. Romero, LLC
110 East Pershing Street
New Iberia, Louisiana 70560
Counsel for Respondent:
Chris Richard

GREMILLION, Judge.

Defendant-Appellant, Sloane Roberts (Roberts), filed a motion “to check out

her entire non-support record, docket number 09-n-749[,]” which is lodged in this

court as an exhibit to this court’s docket number 17-916, “for use in her non-

support appeal without additional costs and without necessity of duplication.” The

appeal in the non-support matter has not yet been lodged due to a pending writ

application (See State of Louisiana v. Roberts, bearing docket number 18-165 in

this court) regarding the denial of Roberts’ request for a reduction in the costs of

appeal. Chris Richard (Richard), the biological father of two children, A.L.R. and

B.A.R., of whom Roberts is the mother, objects to Roberts’ motion.

In In Re: A.L.R. and B.A.R., 17-916, p. 1-2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/14/17), ___

So.3d ___, ___, the facts were set forth as follows:

Appellant and Appellee, Chris Richard, are the biological
parents of the two children involved in this adoption proceeding.
Chris Richard is married to Appellee, Maria Richard. The Richards
filed a petition seeking the intra-family adoption of the two children
by Maria. The initial judgment granting this relief was annulled.
However, after a subsequent trial on the intra-family adoption, the
trial court entered judgment terminating Appellant's parental rights to
the children and granting the intra-family adoption by Maria.
Appellant has appealed this ruling.

According to the opposition memorandum submitted by
Appellees, the non-support action involves the State of Louisiana,
through the Department of Children and Family Services, on behalf of
Appellee, Chris Richard, seeking recovery from Appellant and her
attorney of record in certain tort litigation due to their purported
violation of a statutory lien which the State had perfected against the
personal injury lawsuit filed. Appellant had been involved in a
vehicular collision which resulted in her filing suit seeking damages.
Out of the settlement monies arising from the litigation involving the
wreck, Appellant had allegedly agreed to satisfy her child support
arrearage.

This opinion decided a motion to consolidate the non-support case with the

intra-family adoption case and a motion for leave to check out the non-support

record and use it in her appeal of the proceedings brought against her by the State

of Louisiana. Ultimately, this court denied the motion to consolidate and found

that the motion for leave was premature. In Re: A.L.R. and B.A.R., ___ So.3d ___.

After her motion to consolidate was denied, Roberts filed a motion to correct

the record noting that Richard introduced the entire non-support record into

evidence as Exhibit 15 but that the clerk of court for the district court had omitted

this exhibit from the record. Roberts allegedly paid an additional sum of money to

cover the costs of reproducing these documents. She filed a motion in this court

seeking to have the exhibit sent by the district court and added to the record in this

court’s docket number 17-916. This court signed an order directing the clerk of

court for the district court to “transmit without additional costs Sloane’s entire non-

support record as an exhibit to the record.” The record was corrected, and Roberts

then filed a motion to check out Exhibit 15, and that motion was granted by this

court on January 9, 2018. The order further states that “in accordance with

Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2‒1.14[,] [] SLOANE ROBERTS be and

is hereby granted use of the entire ‘non-support’ record, docket number 09-n-749

in her unlodged non-support appeal without necessity of duplication.”

On January 23, 2018, Roberts filed an exception of res judicata and an

expedited motion to consolidate the non-support and intra-family adoption cases.

That motion and exception were assigned to the panel to which the intra-family

adoption case was assigned.

Richard objects to Roberts’ motion on the ground that Roberts is attempting

to avoid paying the costs to file an appeal. That argument is without merit because

some amount for costs of appeal will be assessed by the trial court regardless of

whether the exhibit is used and because a filing fee will be due in this court before

the record will be lodged. Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2126, the costs of appeal

include “the cost of the preparation of the record on appeal, the fee of the court
2

reporter for preparing the transcript and the filing fee required by the appellate

court.”

Richard also argues that the entire record is not contained in Exhibit 15

because the two judgments rendered on December 13, 2016, and March 14, 2017,

are not contained therein because they were rendered after the trial concluded.

That argument is without merit. The complete record will have to be received by

this court before the record can be lodged.1

Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–1.14 states that: “[a]ny record

lodged in this court may, with leave of court, be used, without necessity of

duplication, in any other case on appeal or on writ.” On January 9, 2018, this court

signed an order in In Re: A.L.R. and B.A.R., bearing docket number 17-916 in this

court, and granted Roberts leave of court to check out Exhibit 15 and granted use

of that exhibit in the un-lodged non-support appeal without necessity of

duplication. Based on Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–1.14, and the

prior order of this court dated January 9, 2018, Roberts’ motion for leave to check

out Exhibit 15 from the record in 17-916 and to use it in the non-support appeal is

hereby granted. Neither the prior order of this court nor Uniform Rules―Courts of

Appeal, Rule 2–1.14 make any provision for the non-payment of costs. The costs

of appeal in this matter are the subject of a pending writ application in State of

Louisiana v. Roberts, bearing docket number 18-165 in this court. Therefore, that

1
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2127 provides that “[t]he clerk of the trial court shall
have the duty of preparing the record on appeal. He shall cause it to be lodged with the appellate
court on or before the return day or any extension thereof. Failure of the clerk to prepare and
lodge the record on appeal either timely or correctly shall not prejudice the appeal.” The
appellant may choose to designate those portions of the record that he wants to constitute the
record on appeal. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2128. The designation must be made within three days
after the appeal. Id. If there is no designation, “the record shall be a transcript of all the
proceedings as well as all documents filed in the trial court.” Id.

3

portion of Roberts’ motion which requests that the use of the exhibit be done

without any additional costs is hereby denied.

MOTION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

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

4