No. 12790 Precedential Processed

In re the Succession of Coleman

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 8, 1979 · 376 So. 2d 1045

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 7, 1982 413 So. 2d 214; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., January 6, 1976 325 So. 2d 352

The holding in the court’s own words

We also conclude that the judgment below will not cause appellant irreparable harm.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Succession of Malcom Lamar Murray La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

In re the Estate of Richardson 214 So. 2d 185
In re the Estate of Richardson 253 La. 66
Hanford v. Jan C. Uiterwyk Co. 216 So. 2d 309

Opinion text

COLE, Judge. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, which is taken from a judgment setting aside an ex parte judgment of possession. Appellees assert that this is not an appealable judgment. Code of Civil Procedure article 2083 provides that appeals may be taken from final judgments or from interlocutory judgments which may cause irreparable injury. We determine that the judgment appealed is interlocutory as it does not reach the merits of the controversy. C.C.P. art. 1841. The effect of the judgment below is simply to reopen the succession to allow appellees an opportunity to prove their claims to the succession property. It in no way determines the merits of those claims. C.C.P. art. 3393(B); In Re Estate of Richardson, 214 So.2d 185 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1968), writ refused 253 La. 66 , 216 So.2d 309 . We also conclude that the judgment below will not cause appellant irreparable harm. Appellant has not shown that she is in any worse or different position than she would have been had appellees asserted their claims in opposition to her petition for possession, instead of coming in after the rendition of the ex parte judgment of possession. For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted at appellant’s costs. MOTION GRANTED.