Armstrong v. Armstrong

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Armstrong v. Armstrong

384 So. 2d 566, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3832

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 13, 1980

DocketNos. 11110, 11111

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 566 (Armstrong v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Armstrong v. Armstrong, 384 So. 2d 566, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3832 (La. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHOTT, Judge.

The husband has appealed from a consent judgment in favor of his wife for alimony pendente lite and child support in the amount of $600 per month. In his brief to this court he contends “that he gave his attorney no such authority” to enter into the consent judgment and he specifies error in the trial court’s awarding a consent judgment without his consent. He is represented in this court by a lawyer other than the one who represented him in the trial court.

The consent judgment which was signed on September 13,1979, recites that the rule came to be heard on June 6 with appellant represented by his previous attorney. That attorney filed a motion withdrawing as counsel of record on June 15, and an order to that effect was signed on June 18. Present counsel took the appeal on September 18. There was no testimony at the trial of the rule.

An appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the trial court. LSA C.C.P. Art. 2085. In Martin v. Holzer Sheet Metal Works, Inc., La., 376 So.2d 500, the court held that a confession of judgment will preclude an appeal if it consists of an admission by a party in the trial court of the validity of his opponent’s claim in such a way as to leave no issue to be tried. The court further held that an appeal is subject to dismissal where appellant’s attorney clearly and unequivocally agreed in open court to the entire judgment rendered against it. The only issue before the trial court in this case was the amount of alimony and child support to be awarded. By his consent to that amount through his attorney appellant forfeited his right to appeal from the judgment.

Additionally, appellant’s argument is based on statements of his present counsel in brief which are not part of the record on appeal. In the meantime, appellee’s counsel [567]*567states in brief that appellant was present with his former attorney during conferences with appellee’s counsel and that appellant was present when the stipulation of consent was entered. The Court of Appeal is not the place for a resolution of such a conflict. Appellant filed no rule in the trial court to show cause why the judgment should not have been recalled, no application for new trial¹ and no action of nullity. In short, there is no evidence to show that the judgment consented to was not authorized by appellant. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHOTT, Judge.

The husband has appealed from a consent judgment in favor of his wife for alimony pendente lite and child support in the amount of $600 per month. In his brief to this court he contends “that he gave his attorney no such authority” to enter into the consent judgment and he specifies error in the trial court’s awarding a consent judgment without his consent. He is represented in this court by a lawyer other than the one who represented him in the trial court.

The consent judgment which was signed on September 13,1979, recites that the rule came to be heard on June 6 with appellant represented by his previous attorney. That attorney filed a motion withdrawing as counsel of record on June 15, and an order to that effect was signed on June 18. Present counsel took the appeal on September 18. There was no testimony at the trial of the rule.

An appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the trial court. LSA C.C.P. Art. 2085. In Martin v. Holzer Sheet Metal Works, Inc., La., 376 So.2d 500, the court held that a confession of judgment will preclude an appeal if it consists of an admission by a party in the trial court of the validity of his opponent’s claim in such a way as to leave no issue to be tried. The court further held that an appeal is subject to dismissal where appellant’s attorney clearly and unequivocally agreed in open court to the entire judgment rendered against it. The only issue before the trial court in this case was the amount of alimony and child support to be awarded. By his consent to that amount through his attorney appellant forfeited his right to appeal from the judgment.

Additionally, appellant’s argument is based on statements of his present counsel in brief which are not part of the record on appeal. In the meantime, appellee’s counsel [567]*567states in brief that appellant was present with his former attorney during conferences with appellee’s counsel and that appellant was present when the stipulation of consent was entered. The Court of Appeal is not the place for a resolution of such a conflict. Appellant filed no rule in the trial court to show cause why the judgment should not have been recalled, no application for new trial¹ and no action of nullity. In short, there is no evidence to show that the judgment consented to was not authorized by appellant. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 So. 2d 566, 1980 La. App. LEXIS 3832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/armstrong-v-armstrong-lactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack