James Norman Thompson v. Chrystal Landry Thompson

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

Rodney Marchive Rabalais Rabalais & Roy P. O. Box 447 Marksville LA 71351

REHEARING ACTION: March 19, 2014

Docket Number: 13 01237-CA

JAMES NORMAN THOMPSON VERSUS CHRYSTAL LANDRY THOMPSON

Appealed from Rapides Parish Case No. 223,238

BEFORE JUDGES:

Hon. John D. Saunders Hon. Billy Howard Ezell Hon. Phyllis M. Keaty

As counsel of record in the captioned case, you are hereby notified that the application

for rehearing filed by James Norman Thompson has this day been

GRANTED. (See attached opinion)

cc: Koby D. Boyett, Counsel for the Appellant NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 13-1237

JAMES NORMAN THOMPSON

VERSUS

CHRYSTAL LANDRY THOMPSON

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 223,238 HONORABLE GEORGE CLARENCE METOYER, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE

ON REHEARING

JOHN D. SAUNDERS

JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Billy H. Ezell, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.

ORIGINAL OPINION RECALLED AND VACATED. ON REHEARING, MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED, REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES DENIED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. Rodney Marchive Rabalais Rabalais & Roy Post Office Box 447 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-4622 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: James Norman Thompson

Koby D. Boyett Attorney at Law Post Office Box 12746 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 481-2242 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Chrystal Landry Thompson SAUNDERS, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this case to consider our original ruling in this

dispute over attorney fees. In his application for rehearing, James Norman

Thompson suggests to this court that the trial court erred by granting an order of

appeal because it intended to address the issue of attorney fees at a later date, and,

in fact, held a hearing on the fees after it granted the order of appeal. On

reconsideration, under the authority of La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164, we vacate the trial

court’s order of appeal as inadvertently granted and remand the matter for the

completion of the proceedings below and for the issuance of a new order of appeal.

It is clear from the record that the trial court held a hearing on the motion for

attorney fees and took the matter under advisement. This, in turn, indicates that the

trial court did not intend to deny the attorney fees outright. This court also notes

that there was a hearing on the motion to annul the order of appeal that was

submitted as part of a writ application filed in this case. Based on the transcript of

the hearing on the motion to annul the order of appeal, the trial court appears to

believe that it still has jurisdiction over fees because it did not rule on that issue.

Thus, there is a clear indication in the record that the trial court intended to address

the issue of attorney fees, and, in fact, held a hearing on that issue.

Based on these considerations, this court, on equitable grounds, sets aside

the order of appeal as inadvertently granted and remands the matter for the

completion of the proceedings below and the issuance of a new order of appeal.

ORIGINAL OPINION RECALLED AND VACATED. ON REHEARING, MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED, REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES DENIED, REMANDED FOR FURTHER ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

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