Pazereckis v. Thornhill

462 So. 2d 296, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10410
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedDecember 28, 1984
DocketNo. CA 84 1222
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 296 (Pazereckis v. Thornhill) 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
Pazereckis v. Thornhill, 462 So. 2d 296, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10410 (La. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

GROVER L. COVINGTON, Chief Judge.

This matter concerns a motion filed by defendant-appellee, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that plaintiff has acquiesced in the judgment from which this appeal is taken.

Plaintiff, Jeffery (or Jeffrey1) Allan Paz-ereckis, minor son of Vincent J. Pazereckis, represented by Cynthia Sullivan as tutrix of the minor, sought damages through both a survivial action and one in wrongful death for injuries and subsequent death of Vincent J. Pazereckis, allegedly resulting from an automobile accident with defendant Robert Thornhill.

Also made defendant in the suit was United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in its capacity as insurer of defendant, Robert Thornhill, and in its capacity as insurer2 of Delta Marine Catering, Inc., the employer of Vincent J. Pazereckis, and for which Vincent J. Pazereckis was driving a truck at the time of the accident.

Houston General Insurance Company, as workmen’s compensation insurer of Delta Marine Catering, Inc., intervened against the defendants, seeking recovery for payments it had made to Vincent J. Pazereckis.

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff based upon plaintiff’s survival action and dismissed the claim for wrongful death.

Defendant-appellee in its memorandum in support of its motion, refers to the portion of the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff and against it as insurer of Delta Marine Catering, Inc. in the amount of $97,993.54; and the check in amount of $84,093.25 made to “Cynthia L. Sullivan as tutrix of the minor, Jeffery Pazereckis, and her attorney, R. Ray Orrill, Jr.”; and a signed Satisfaction of Judgment in its favor as insurer of Delta Marine Catering, Inc. which was filed with the clerk of court to cancel and erase the judgment and mark it satisfied. Based upon the foregoing, defendant-mover contends that plaintiff acquiesced in the judgment and is thus prohibited from pursuing the instant appeal.

Plaintiff argues in opposition that the judgment consists of four divisible parts, that the appeal is limited to the portion of the judgment denying the claim for wrongful death,3 and that the Satisfaction of [298]*298Judgment- relied upon by the mover does not apply to the portion of the judgment denying the claim in wrongful death but is limited to those portions of the judgment in favor of plaintiff to which the Satisfaction of Judgment is restricted by its wording.

Appeals being favored in law, forfeiture of an appellant’s right of appeal through acquiescence should be decreed only when her intention to abandon the right of appeal is clearly demonstrated. Cohn Realty Co. v. Able Moving & Storage Co., 402 So.2d 104 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). Acquiescence in a judgment is never presumed; the party alleging same must clearly establish that the appellant intended to acquiesce. Succession of Marcel, 387 So.2d 1363 (La.App. 1st Cir.1980). A judgment is acquiesced in only if an intention to accept the judgment and not to appeal is clearly shown; and under Marcel, that intention must be expressed unambiguously and unequivocally. Associates Commercial v. Bayou Management, 415 So.2d 557 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982).

LSA-C.C.P. art. 2085 provides as follows: An appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the proceedings in the trial court or who voluntarily and unconditionally acquiesced in a judgment rendered against him. Confession of or acquiescence in part of a divisible judgment or in a favorable part of an indivisible judgment does not preclude an appeal as to other parts of such judgment.

The judgment in the instant case is a divisible judgment, which consists, inter alia, of four parts pertinent to the instant motion, and which read as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of Cynthia Sullivan as tutrix of the minor, Jeffery Allan Pazereckis, and against defendants, Robert Thornhill and his insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company in the full sum of $10,000.00 with interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid, and for all costs of these proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of Cynthia Sullivan, as tutrix of the minor, Jeffery Allan Pazer-eckis and against Robert Thornhill and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as the uninsured motorist insurer of Delta Marine Catering, Inc. in the full sum of $97,993.54, all with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of judicial demand until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of intervenor, Houston General Insurance Company, and against defendants, Robert Thorn-hill, his insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as the uninsured motorist insurer of Delta Marine Catering, Inc., with priority, for the total sum of workmen’s compensation benefits and medical expenses paid in the full sum of $41,726.20, all with interest thereon at the legal rate from date of judicial demand until paid for which payment defendants are allowed a credit toward satisfaction of the Judgment in favor of Cynthia Sullivan, as tutrix of the minor child, Jeffery Allan Pazereckis.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendants, dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action for wrongful death.

The Satisfaction of Judgment relied upon by mover as constituting acquiescence is limited by its wording4 to the second para[299]*299graph quoted from the judgment. Two other Satisfactions of Judgment were executed in regard to the first and third quoted paragraphs of the judgment.5

Since the Satisfaction of Judgment upon which mover relies is applicable only to the second quoted paragraph from the judgment, the fourth quoted paragraph from the judgment is unaffected by said Satisfaction, and accordingly under the express language of LSA-C.C.P. art. 2085 the plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal of the wrongful death claim is not.precluded by virtue of said Satisfaction.

MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED.

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

Related

Aucoin v. State Through Dept. of Transp. and Dev.
712 So. 2d 62 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
462 So. 2d 296, 1984 La. App. LEXIS 10410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pazereckis-v-thornhill-lactapp-1984.