STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
17-1184
MARGARET C. CAMALO, ET AL.
VERSUS
PATRICIA LAURA ESTRADA, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20164520 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE
Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Alan K. Breaud Breaud & Meyers P. O. Drawer 3448 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 266-2200 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Margaret C. Camalo Frank Camalo
Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. Liskow & Lewis P. O. Box 52008 Lafayette, LA 70505-2008 (337) 232-7424 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Joseph C. Giglio, III Margaret P. Giglio
Jonathan B. Andry Andry Law Group, L.L.C. 610 Baronne St. New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 525-5535 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Cye Courtois Patricia Laura Estrada EZELL, Judge.
Patricia and Cye Courtois appeal the decision of the trial court below awarding
attorney fees to Margaret and Joseph Giglio for work done on a motion to hold Mr.
Courtois in contempt of court. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of
the trial court.
The matter currently before this court is but part of a larger property dispute
between the Courtois and two sets of their neighbors, the aforementioned Giglios on
one side and Margaret and Frank Camalo on the other. During the course of the
litigation, the Courtois and Giglios stipulated to a preliminary injunction preventing
either party from communicating with the other, as well as ordering each party to
refrain from harassing the other or damaging the other’s property. After Mr.
Courtois deliberately violated this injunction by damaging drainage, trees, and
shrubs on the Giglios’ property, among other things, the Giglios filed a motion for
contempt.
The trial court found that Mr. Courtois “willfully disobeyed the order and
judgment of the court” by cutting the Giglios’ shrubs, performing prohibited work
within a seven-and-one-half foot setback, damaging the Giglios’ drainage pipe, and
in peering over the Giglios’ wall and photographing their back yard. The trial court
imposed a $500.00 fine and set a later hearing to determine an award of attorney fees
for the contempt motion. After that later hearing, the trial court awarded the Giglios
$11,587.50 in attorney fees.1 From that decision, the Courtois appeal.
1 Though the trial court stated the award was for $12,387.50 in its oral ruling, the judgment signed by the trial court awarded $11,587.50. In such a situation, the written judgment will prevail. Hebert v. Hebert, 351 So.2d 1199, 1200 (La.1977); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 26,093 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 764. On appeal, the Courtois assert two assignments of error. They claim that the
trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to a party that has not paid nor incurred an
obligation to pay attorney fees, and that the trial court erred in striking an untimely
supplemental memorandum. The Courtois do not challenge the trial court’s finding
that Mr. Courtois willfully violated the injunction. We find no error in the decision
of the trial court.
The Courtois first assert that attorney fees cannot be awarded to the Giglios,
citing Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA, 608 So.2d 1019, 1034 (La.Ct.App. 3 Cir. 1992),
writ denied, 614 So.2d 1241 (La.1993) (alteration in original) (quoting Rhodes v.
Collier, 215 La. 754, 41 So.2d 669, 673 (1949)), for the proposition that “In cases
where attorneys’ fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been
paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery.” They argue that the Giglios’
attorney, Mr. Giglio’s father, had admitted to representing the couple free of charge
and that, therefore, the Giglios had not incurred any obligation to pay attorney fees.
It is worth noting again that the Courtois do not challenge the trial court finding Mr.
Courtois in contempt, nor do they challenge the amount or reasonableness of the
attorney fee award, but merely challenge the trial court’s ability to award attorney
fees where the Giglios’ attorney was representing them for free. We find their
argument unpersuasive.
Goodrich and the line of older cases cited by the Courtois did not deal with
contempt of court, but rather contract disputes and various other civil matters
designed to benefit a party to the suits pending in those specific cases. This facet of
the current lawsuit before this court was not such a matter, but rather a contempt
proceeding based on Mr. Courtois’ direct disregard of a court order. A proceeding
for contempt in refusing to obey the court’s orders is not designed for the benefit of
2 the litigant, though infliction of a punishment may inure to the benefit of the mover
in the rule. The object of a contempt proceeding is to vindicate the dignity of the
court. Howard v. Oden, 44,191 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 5 So.3d 989, writ denied,
09-965 (La. 6/26/09), 11 So.3d 496. “The trial court is vested with great discretion
in determining whether a party should be held in contempt for disobeying the court’s
order, and its decision will only be reversed when the appellate court can discern an
abuse of that discretion.” Id. at 997. See also Fradella v. Rowell, 49,350 (La. App.
2 Cir. 8/13/14), 147 So.3d 817; Mizell v. Mizell, 37,004 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/7/03), 839
So.2d 1222. Yet again, the Courtois do not challenge the ruling holding Mr. Courtois
in contempt.
Under La.R.S. 13:4611(1)(g), “[t]he court may award attorney fees to the
prevailing party in a contempt of court proceeding provided for in this Section.” The
general rule is that “[t]he decision whether to grant relief against a recalcitrant party
rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of that discretion.” Rodock v. Pommier, 16-809, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/17),
225 So.3d 512, 521, writ denied, 17-631 (La. 5/1/17), 221 So.3d 70 (alteration in
original) (quoting LeJeune v. Lafayette Tower Serv., 94-1240, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir.
4/5/95), 653 So.2d 112, 114.)
Based on the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s award of attorney fees related to the contempt of court proceeding below.
While the Giglios’ attorney may indeed receive something of a windfall under the
peculiar facts of this case, it is better in the eyes of this court that a generous attorney
receive payment for work actually performed, though originally volunteered, than to
reward an intentional bad actor for openly defying a court order. This especially
applies in this matter, where Mr. Courtois violated the court order in a willful and
3 ongoing manner, multiple times, and in multiple ways. We can find no merit in this
assignment of error.
The Courtois next claim that the trial court erred in striking their untimely
supplemental opposition to the Giglios’ motion to fix attorney fees, which had been
filed in violation of District Court Rule 9.9. Pursuant to Louisiana District Court
Rule 9.9, opposition memoranda must be filed at least eight days before a hearing.
Those time limitations are mandatory, and if a filing is untimely, the trial court may
rule it inadmissible and exclude it from evidence. Phillips v. Lafayette Parish Sch.
Bd., 10-373 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10), 54 So.3d 739. Although the trial court has
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
17-1184
MARGARET C. CAMALO, ET AL.
VERSUS
PATRICIA LAURA ESTRADA, ET AL.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20164520 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
BILLY HOWARD EZELL JUDGE
Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.
AFFIRMED. Alan K. Breaud Breaud & Meyers P. O. Drawer 3448 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 266-2200 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Margaret C. Camalo Frank Camalo
Joseph C. Giglio, Jr. Liskow & Lewis P. O. Box 52008 Lafayette, LA 70505-2008 (337) 232-7424 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Joseph C. Giglio, III Margaret P. Giglio
Jonathan B. Andry Andry Law Group, L.L.C. 610 Baronne St. New Orleans, LA 70113 (504) 525-5535 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Cye Courtois Patricia Laura Estrada EZELL, Judge.
Patricia and Cye Courtois appeal the decision of the trial court below awarding
attorney fees to Margaret and Joseph Giglio for work done on a motion to hold Mr.
Courtois in contempt of court. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of
the trial court.
The matter currently before this court is but part of a larger property dispute
between the Courtois and two sets of their neighbors, the aforementioned Giglios on
one side and Margaret and Frank Camalo on the other. During the course of the
litigation, the Courtois and Giglios stipulated to a preliminary injunction preventing
either party from communicating with the other, as well as ordering each party to
refrain from harassing the other or damaging the other’s property. After Mr.
Courtois deliberately violated this injunction by damaging drainage, trees, and
shrubs on the Giglios’ property, among other things, the Giglios filed a motion for
contempt.
The trial court found that Mr. Courtois “willfully disobeyed the order and
judgment of the court” by cutting the Giglios’ shrubs, performing prohibited work
within a seven-and-one-half foot setback, damaging the Giglios’ drainage pipe, and
in peering over the Giglios’ wall and photographing their back yard. The trial court
imposed a $500.00 fine and set a later hearing to determine an award of attorney fees
for the contempt motion. After that later hearing, the trial court awarded the Giglios
$11,587.50 in attorney fees.1 From that decision, the Courtois appeal.
1 Though the trial court stated the award was for $12,387.50 in its oral ruling, the judgment signed by the trial court awarded $11,587.50. In such a situation, the written judgment will prevail. Hebert v. Hebert, 351 So.2d 1199, 1200 (La.1977); Rodgers v. Rodgers, 26,093 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 9/21/94), 643 So.2d 764. On appeal, the Courtois assert two assignments of error. They claim that the
trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to a party that has not paid nor incurred an
obligation to pay attorney fees, and that the trial court erred in striking an untimely
supplemental memorandum. The Courtois do not challenge the trial court’s finding
that Mr. Courtois willfully violated the injunction. We find no error in the decision
of the trial court.
The Courtois first assert that attorney fees cannot be awarded to the Giglios,
citing Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA, 608 So.2d 1019, 1034 (La.Ct.App. 3 Cir. 1992),
writ denied, 614 So.2d 1241 (La.1993) (alteration in original) (quoting Rhodes v.
Collier, 215 La. 754, 41 So.2d 669, 673 (1949)), for the proposition that “In cases
where attorneys’ fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been
paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery.” They argue that the Giglios’
attorney, Mr. Giglio’s father, had admitted to representing the couple free of charge
and that, therefore, the Giglios had not incurred any obligation to pay attorney fees.
It is worth noting again that the Courtois do not challenge the trial court finding Mr.
Courtois in contempt, nor do they challenge the amount or reasonableness of the
attorney fee award, but merely challenge the trial court’s ability to award attorney
fees where the Giglios’ attorney was representing them for free. We find their
argument unpersuasive.
Goodrich and the line of older cases cited by the Courtois did not deal with
contempt of court, but rather contract disputes and various other civil matters
designed to benefit a party to the suits pending in those specific cases. This facet of
the current lawsuit before this court was not such a matter, but rather a contempt
proceeding based on Mr. Courtois’ direct disregard of a court order. A proceeding
for contempt in refusing to obey the court’s orders is not designed for the benefit of
2 the litigant, though infliction of a punishment may inure to the benefit of the mover
in the rule. The object of a contempt proceeding is to vindicate the dignity of the
court. Howard v. Oden, 44,191 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/25/09), 5 So.3d 989, writ denied,
09-965 (La. 6/26/09), 11 So.3d 496. “The trial court is vested with great discretion
in determining whether a party should be held in contempt for disobeying the court’s
order, and its decision will only be reversed when the appellate court can discern an
abuse of that discretion.” Id. at 997. See also Fradella v. Rowell, 49,350 (La. App.
2 Cir. 8/13/14), 147 So.3d 817; Mizell v. Mizell, 37,004 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/7/03), 839
So.2d 1222. Yet again, the Courtois do not challenge the ruling holding Mr. Courtois
in contempt.
Under La.R.S. 13:4611(1)(g), “[t]he court may award attorney fees to the
prevailing party in a contempt of court proceeding provided for in this Section.” The
general rule is that “[t]he decision whether to grant relief against a recalcitrant party
rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse
of that discretion.” Rodock v. Pommier, 16-809, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/17),
225 So.3d 512, 521, writ denied, 17-631 (La. 5/1/17), 221 So.3d 70 (alteration in
original) (quoting LeJeune v. Lafayette Tower Serv., 94-1240, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir.
4/5/95), 653 So.2d 112, 114.)
Based on the record before us, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial
court’s award of attorney fees related to the contempt of court proceeding below.
While the Giglios’ attorney may indeed receive something of a windfall under the
peculiar facts of this case, it is better in the eyes of this court that a generous attorney
receive payment for work actually performed, though originally volunteered, than to
reward an intentional bad actor for openly defying a court order. This especially
applies in this matter, where Mr. Courtois violated the court order in a willful and
3 ongoing manner, multiple times, and in multiple ways. We can find no merit in this
assignment of error.
The Courtois next claim that the trial court erred in striking their untimely
supplemental opposition to the Giglios’ motion to fix attorney fees, which had been
filed in violation of District Court Rule 9.9. Pursuant to Louisiana District Court
Rule 9.9, opposition memoranda must be filed at least eight days before a hearing.
Those time limitations are mandatory, and if a filing is untimely, the trial court may
rule it inadmissible and exclude it from evidence. Phillips v. Lafayette Parish Sch.
Bd., 10-373 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/10), 54 So.3d 739. Although the trial court has
some discretion to admit late-filed materials, the trial court’s decision to disallow
the affidavits is not an abuse of discretion. Id.
The Courtois’ supplemental memo was clearly filed in an untimely manner,
just two days before the scheduled hearing. The trial court was within its discretion
to strike the late supplemental opposition memoranda. Moreover, the contents of
that stricken memo dealt exclusively with the Courtois’ argument above concerning
the Giglios’ right to attorney fees where their attorney had worked for free. That
memo included the same exact contentions and case citations the Courtois made in
their unpersuasive arguments before this court. Therefore, our ruling above that the
trial court did not err in awarding the Giglios’ attorney fees ultimately renders this
assignment of error moot. There is no merit in this assertion.
Finally, the Giglios have requested an additional award of attorney fees for
work performed on appeal. When an appellee neither appeals nor answers the appeal,
he is not entitled to additional attorney fees for legal services rendered on appeal.
La.Code Civ.P. art. 2133; Dugas v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 02-1276 (La.App. 3 Cir.
3/5/03), 839 So.2d 1205. Moreover, the award given to the Giglios’s attorney is
4 already substantial for a simple contempt motion and would have been under serious
scrutiny had the Courtois actually challenged its reasonableness, rather than merely
disputing the trial court’s ability to make the award. The Giglios are not entitled to
attorney fees for work done on appeal.
For the above reasons, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs
of this appeal are hereby assessed against the Courtois.
AFFIRMED.