Dione W. David v. Richard G. David

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 12-1051

DIONE W. DAVID

VERSUS

RICHARD G. DAVID

**********

APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 113919 HONORABLE CHARLES LEE PORTER, DISTRICT JUDGE

SHANNON J. GREMILLION

JUDGE

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, James T. Genovese, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

MOTION DENIED.

Ed W. Bankston Attorney at Law Post Office Box 53485 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 237-4223 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Richard G. David L.E. "Tony" Morrow, Jr. Attorney at Law 323 E. University Avenue Lafayette, LA 70503 (337) 233-9515 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Dione W. David GREMILLION, Judge.

The defendant-appellant, Richard G. David, filed a pleading in this court

entitled Motion to Dismiss and to Cancel Trial Court Hearing Set for October 23,

2012, as Outside the Court’s Jurisdiction Given the Instant Appeal of Richard G.

David Defendant/Appellant. For the reasons assigned, we deny the motion.

The instant domestic litigation resulted in a judgment dividing the community

formerly existing between the parties. The defendant filed a motion to appeal the

judgment dividing the community. However, according to the allegations made in the

motion sub judice, the plaintiff-appellee, Dione W. David, filed pleadings in the trial

court entitled Cancellation of Notice of Pendency (June 7, 2012), Motion and Order

for Contempt, Money Judgment, and Reimbursement for Rent (June 29, 2012). The

defendant has failed to provide this court with copies of these latter pleadings.

However, the defendant has filed the instant motion claiming that the trial court has

set these matters for contradictory hearing. The defendant avers that, since these

matters relate directly to the issues pending in the instant appeal, the trial court has

been divested of jurisdiction to hear and decide them.

As indicated above, this court has not been provided copies of the actual

pleadings which have prompted the alleged upcoming hearing in the trial court.

Regardless, we note that the instant appeal is devolutive, not suspensive. Therefore,

we find that we cannot grant the relief requested by the defendant on the showing

made.

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