Britt v. Britt

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Britt v. Britt

496 So. 2d 655, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7999

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 27, 1986

DocketNo. 86-1035

StatusPublished

This text of 496 So. 2d 655 (Britt v. Britt) 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

Britt v. Britt, 496 So. 2d 655, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7999 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff-appellee, Mary Britt, moves to dismiss the suspensive appeal of the defendant-appellant, Charles Britt, on the ground that no suspensive appeal lies from a judgment awarding past due child support and on the question of contempt.

Mover has supplied no authority for her position that a suspensive appeal does not lie from a judgment rendered pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 3945. To the contrary, the jurisprudence interpreting La.C.C.P. arts. 3943 and 3945 hold that a suspensive appeal does lie from a judgment accumulat[656]*656ing back alimony or child support, and making it executory. See Lacour v. Lacour, 355 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978); Granger v. Granger, 193 So.2d 898 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1967); Oliver v. Oliver, 417 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982); and, Hendershot v. Hendershot, 407 So.2d 93 (La.App. 2d Cir.1981).

Although a review of contempt conviction is usually had only by application for supervisory writ, our jurisprudence has allowed a review of contempt convictions on direct appeal and in cases where the appellate court was reviewing other related appealable matters. Defendant’s contempt conviction and the sentence imposed is directly related to his appeal which questions the correctness of the arrearage judgment rendered by the trial court. City of Monroe v. Evans, 385 So.2d 912 (La.App. 2d Cir.1980), and cases therein cited.

For these reasons, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.

MOTION DENIED.

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

GUIDRY, Judge.

MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff-appellee, Mary Britt, moves to dismiss the suspensive appeal of the defendant-appellant, Charles Britt, on the ground that no suspensive appeal lies from a judgment awarding past due child support and on the question of contempt.

Mover has supplied no authority for her position that a suspensive appeal does not lie from a judgment rendered pursuant to La.C.C.P. art. 3945. To the contrary, the jurisprudence interpreting La.C.C.P. arts. 3943 and 3945 hold that a suspensive appeal does lie from a judgment accumulat[656]*656ing back alimony or child support, and making it executory. See Lacour v. Lacour, 355 So.2d 1083 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978); Granger v. Granger, 193 So.2d 898 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1967); Oliver v. Oliver, 417 So.2d 1278 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982); and, Hendershot v. Hendershot, 407 So.2d 93 (La.App. 2d Cir.1981).

Although a review of contempt conviction is usually had only by application for supervisory writ, our jurisprudence has allowed a review of contempt convictions on direct appeal and in cases where the appellate court was reviewing other related appealable matters. Defendant’s contempt conviction and the sentence imposed is directly related to his appeal which questions the correctness of the arrearage judgment rendered by the trial court. City of Monroe v. Evans, 385 So.2d 912 (La.App. 2d Cir.1980), and cases therein cited.

For these reasons, appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied.

MOTION DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 So. 2d 655, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/britt-v-britt-lactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack