Patricia Gibbs Alexander Lagarde v. Jean Paul Lagarde

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 2023-CA-0599
• Status: Published

Opinion

PATRICIA GIBBS * NO. 2023-CA-0599 ALEXANDER LAGARDE * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT JEAN PAUL LAGARDE * STATE OF LOUISIANA

*

* *******

BROWN, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS.

PAB I respectfully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to

highlight this Court’s role on appellate review. “It is well-settled that ‘[w]hen the

factual findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony, the appellate

court must give great deference to the fact finder’s decision to credit witness

testimony.’” Carrie v. Jones, 21-0659, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/21/22), 334 So.3d

834, 843 (quoting Watts v. Watts, 08-0834, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/8/09), 10 So.3d

855, 857). “Even if an appellate court feels its own evaluations and inferences are

more reasonable than the factfinder’s, reasonable evaluations of credibility and

reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict

exists in testimony.” Id. at p. 12, 334 So.3d at 843-44 (quoting Guste Homes

Resident Mgmt. Corp. v. Thomas, 20-0110, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/29/20), 302

So.3d 1181, 1187). In the case sub judice, the district court gave oral reasons for

judgment, stating that “[the court did] not find that Miss Lagarde met her abuse

allegations as alleged in the Petition for Protection from Abuse by the

preponderance of the evidence, coupled with parties[’] testimony, the evidence and

the testimony of Dr. Lawing.” As such, and after a review of the record, I agree

with the majority that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mr.

Lagarde’s version of events to be more credible that than of Ms. Lagarde.