E. D. Haber Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Koppenal
Opinion
Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was untimely.
The timeliness of the appeal is the sole issue. We deny the motion.
Trial on the merits was had September 22, 1980. On October 7, judgment was signed. A motion for a new trial was denied on October 14. Defendant filed the motion for appeal December 12, within the time limits prescribed by C.C.P. Art. 2087.1
The order of appeal, however, was not signed until December 16, after the delays for a devolutive appeal had run.
Appellee argues that under LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2121,2 an order of appeal must be signed within the delay allowed for obtaining an appeal or be dismissed as untimely.
In the consolidated case of Joseph N. Traigle, Collector of Revenue, State of Louisiana v. Gulf Coast Aluminum Corporation, et al., 399 So.2d 183 (1981), the Supreme Court held a timely filed appeal, signed after delays have run, shall not be dismissed as untimely. Basing its decision on LSA-C. [1225] C.P. Art. 2161,3 the court held the fault of the Clerk of Court in not signing the appeal himself or in not obtaining the judge’s signature thereon shall not be imputable to the appellant.
MOTION DENIED.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
399 So. 2d 1224 (E. D. Haber Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Koppenal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.