Jupiter v. Jupiter

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Jupiter v. Jupiter

166 So. 3d 1019, 2014 La.App. 1 Cir. 1421, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 439, 2015 WL 995404

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 6, 2015

DocketNo. 2014 CU 1421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 So. 3d 1019 (Jupiter v. Jupiter) 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

Jupiter v. Jupiter, 166 So. 3d 1019, 2014 La.App. 1 Cir. 1421, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 439, 2015 WL 995404 (La. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIN, J.

lain this domestic proceeding, Kendrick D. Jupiter appeals a July 18, 2014 judgment denying his rule for contempt against his ex-wife, and mother of his two children. Because the July 18, 2014 judgment is interlocutory and not appealable, we dismiss this appeal.

[1020]*1020DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1. We have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Swanson v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 01-1066 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 837 So.2d 634, 636.

This court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments. See La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083 A. A final judgment determines the merits of a controversy, in whole or in part. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. In contrast, an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits, but decides only preliminary matters in the course of an action. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. An interlocutory judgment is ap-pealable only when expressly provided by law. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083C.

This court has held that a judgment denying a rule for contempt is interlocutory, as it does not determine the merits of the case. See La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841; Buxton v. Buxton, 10-2182 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/12), 2012 WL 1070012, p. 2. Further, this court has recognized that no law expressly provides for an appeal of a judgment denying a rule for contempt. See Buxton, 2012 WL 1070012 at p. 2. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the July 18, 2014 judgment on appeal.

I ¡.CONCLUSION

Considering the foregoing, we find that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the July 18, 2014 judgment. Accordingly the instant appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is ordered to set a return date for a writ application pursuant to Jupiter’s notice of appeal filed on August 18, 2014. Any such application must comply with the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 4-1, et seq., and must contain a copy of this opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH ORDER.

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

CRAIN, J.

lain this domestic proceeding, Kendrick D. Jupiter appeals a July 18, 2014 judgment denying his rule for contempt against his ex-wife, and mother of his two children. Because the July 18, 2014 judgment is interlocutory and not appealable, we dismiss this appeal.

[1020]*1020DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction is the legal power and authority of a court to hear and determine an action or proceeding involving the legal relations of the parties, and to grant the relief to which they are entitled. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1. We have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Swanson v. Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 01-1066 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 837 So.2d 634, 636.

This court’s appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments. See La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083 A. A final judgment determines the merits of a controversy, in whole or in part. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. In contrast, an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits, but decides only preliminary matters in the course of an action. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841. An interlocutory judgment is ap-pealable only when expressly provided by law. La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 2083C.

This court has held that a judgment denying a rule for contempt is interlocutory, as it does not determine the merits of the case. See La.Code Civ. Pro. art. 1841; Buxton v. Buxton, 10-2182 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/12), 2012 WL 1070012, p. 2. Further, this court has recognized that no law expressly provides for an appeal of a judgment denying a rule for contempt. See Buxton, 2012 WL 1070012 at p. 2. Thus, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the July 18, 2014 judgment on appeal.

I ¡.CONCLUSION

Considering the foregoing, we find that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review the July 18, 2014 judgment. Accordingly the instant appeal is dismissed. However, the trial court is ordered to set a return date for a writ application pursuant to Jupiter’s notice of appeal filed on August 18, 2014. Any such application must comply with the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, Rules 4-1, et seq., and must contain a copy of this opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH ORDER.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 So. 3d 1019, 2014 La.App. 1 Cir. 1421, 2015 La. App. LEXIS 439, 2015 WL 995404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jupiter-v-jupiter-lactapp-2015.

Opinion

I ¡.CONCLUSION

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack