Bellow v. Bellow

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Bellow v. Bellow

734 So. 2d 108, 98 La.App. 5 Cir. 1031, 1999 La. App. LEXIS 1067, 1999 WL 216078

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 15, 1999

DocketNo. 98-CA-1031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 734 So. 2d 108 (Bellow v. Bellow) 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

Bellow v. Bellow, 734 So. 2d 108, 98 La.App. 5 Cir. 1031, 1999 La. App. LEXIS 1067, 1999 WL 216078 (La. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

JjDUFRESNE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment holding appellant in contempt of court and fining her $5,000.00. For the following reasons that appeal is hereby dismissed.

The judgment at issue here was rendered on June 15, 1998, and a petition for appeal of that judgment was filed on July 20, 1998. The record of the case was lodged in this court on September 80,1998. However, on August 12, 1998, prior to lodging of the record here, appellant also sought relief from the June 15, 1998, judgment by way of an application for supervisory writs. On October 5, 1999, that writ application was granted in part. In resolving the matter the court noted that' in addition to the June 15, 1998, judgment, there also appeared in the record of the case another contempt judgment of September 8, 1997. It went on to rule that:

Relator was found in contempt of court for failure to attend mediation proceedings, following the required notice, on September 8, 1997. The judgment of September 8, 1997, is the only valid contempt proceeding in the present record, and therefore any penalty herein can only attach to that judgment.

The case was then remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The effect of the above ruling was to vacate the June 15, 1998, judgment in its entirety. That being the case, there is nothing remaining of the June 15, |?1998, judgment to be reviewed on appeal. The appeal is therefore moot, and is hereby dismissed as such.

We note that appellant has raised issues in her brief to this court which relate to a subsequent judgment of February 24, 1999, which was entered in response to the October 5, 1998, order of remand in the prior writ application. That judgment is [109]*109not a part of the record of the present appeal, and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to review that judgment via this appeal.¹

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

JjDUFRESNE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment holding appellant in contempt of court and fining her $5,000.00. For the following reasons that appeal is hereby dismissed.

The judgment at issue here was rendered on June 15, 1998, and a petition for appeal of that judgment was filed on July 20, 1998. The record of the case was lodged in this court on September 80,1998. However, on August 12, 1998, prior to lodging of the record here, appellant also sought relief from the June 15, 1998, judgment by way of an application for supervisory writs. On October 5, 1999, that writ application was granted in part. In resolving the matter the court noted that' in addition to the June 15, 1998, judgment, there also appeared in the record of the case another contempt judgment of September 8, 1997. It went on to rule that:

Relator was found in contempt of court for failure to attend mediation proceedings, following the required notice, on September 8, 1997. The judgment of September 8, 1997, is the only valid contempt proceeding in the present record, and therefore any penalty herein can only attach to that judgment.

The case was then remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

The effect of the above ruling was to vacate the June 15, 1998, judgment in its entirety. That being the case, there is nothing remaining of the June 15, |?1998, judgment to be reviewed on appeal. The appeal is therefore moot, and is hereby dismissed as such.

We note that appellant has raised issues in her brief to this court which relate to a subsequent judgment of February 24, 1999, which was entered in response to the October 5, 1998, order of remand in the prior writ application. That judgment is [109]*109not a part of the record of the present appeal, and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction to review that judgment via this appeal.¹

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 So. 2d 108, 98 La.App. 5 Cir. 1031, 1999 La. App. LEXIS 1067, 1999 WL 216078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellow-v-bellow-lactapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack