LaCour v. LaCour

Louisiana Court of Appeal

LaCour v. LaCour

488 So. 2d 777, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7037

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 22, 1986

DocketNo. 85-879

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 488 So. 2d 777 (LaCour v. LaCour) 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

LaCour v. LaCour, 488 So. 2d 777, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7037 (La. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

MOTION TO DISMISS

KING, Judge.

On April 1, 1985, the plaintiff-appellee, Joseph Reed LaCour, filed suit for legal separation and child custody against the defendant-appellant, Carolyn Anita LaC-our. Subsequently, the parties reconciled and lived together until June 8, 1985 when the defendant is alleged to have abandoned the plaintiff. On November 10, 1985, the plaintiff filed a First Supplemental and Amended Petition to include abandonment as a ground for legal separation. In response, the defendant filed an Exception of No Cause of Action and Plea of Reconciliation and Condonation.

On July 10, 1985, the trial court rendered a judgment denying defendant’s exceptions. The defendant filed for and was granted a devolutive appeal of the July 10, 1985 judgment.

This Court ex proprio motu issued a rule to show cause why the appeal of the defendant should not be dismissed on the ground that the judgment appealed from is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. The defendant did not answer the rule.

A judgment which dismisses or denies a peremptory exception of no right or cause of action is an interlocutory judgment and is unappealable. Millet v. Johnson, 352 So.2d 1301 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977).

[778]*778Therefore, we find the judgment appealed from is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is dismissed at defendant’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

MOTION TO DISMISS

KING, Judge.

On April 1, 1985, the plaintiff-appellee, Joseph Reed LaCour, filed suit for legal separation and child custody against the defendant-appellant, Carolyn Anita LaC-our. Subsequently, the parties reconciled and lived together until June 8, 1985 when the defendant is alleged to have abandoned the plaintiff. On November 10, 1985, the plaintiff filed a First Supplemental and Amended Petition to include abandonment as a ground for legal separation. In response, the defendant filed an Exception of No Cause of Action and Plea of Reconciliation and Condonation.

On July 10, 1985, the trial court rendered a judgment denying defendant’s exceptions. The defendant filed for and was granted a devolutive appeal of the July 10, 1985 judgment.

This Court ex proprio motu issued a rule to show cause why the appeal of the defendant should not be dismissed on the ground that the judgment appealed from is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. The defendant did not answer the rule.

A judgment which dismisses or denies a peremptory exception of no right or cause of action is an interlocutory judgment and is unappealable. Millet v. Johnson, 352 So.2d 1301 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977).

[778]*778Therefore, we find the judgment appealed from is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is dismissed at defendant’s cost.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 777, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 7037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacour-v-lacour-lactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack