Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton

DecidedAugust 23, 2019

Docket2019CW1077

StatusUnknown

This text of Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton (Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton) 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

Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton, (La. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT RUDOLPH DEMPSEY, JR., NO. 2019 CW 1077 ELIZABETH DEMPSEY GOODLOW AND MILLIE HAMILTON HARRIS VERSUS AMOS HAMILTON AUGUST 23, 2019

In Re: Amos Hamilton, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 96334.

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER; STAY DENIED. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in increasing the suspensive appeal bond to $700,000. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2124(B) (3), a trial court shall fix security "at an amount sufficient to assure the satisfaction of the judgment, together with damages for the delay resulting from the suspension of the execution." Plaintiffs, as the movers, introduced no evidence or documentation regarding the amount of damages that they would suffer resulting from suspension of the execution of the judgment being appealed, and there was no evidence establishing the sufficiency or insufficiency of the original bond amount. See La Code Civ. P. arts. 963 and 5123. However, we find that the original suspensive appeal bond set at $1, 000 was insufficient and further find that the bond should be determined by the interest plaintiffs could earn on the money realized by any sale of property contemplated in the judgment suspensively appealed. Palmisano v. Lake Forest Boulevard Med. Dev., 413 So.2d 913 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1982); Ingolia v. Pique, 139 So.2d 34 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the trial court's July 26, 2019 judgment increasing the suspensive appeal bond in this case to $700,000 is vacated, and the suspensive appeal bond is hereby reduced to $130, 635, which is the product of three- fourths of the appraised value of the land ($2,177,250) and the current judicial interest rate of 6% for a period of one year. La. R.S. 9:3500(B)(l); La. R.S. 13:4202(B). Defendant is ordered to post the supplemental bond within four days, exclusive of legal holidays, of the date of this court's action in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 5124.

TMH AHP WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY F COURT FOR THE COURT

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

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT RUDOLPH DEMPSEY, JR., NO. 2019 CW 1077 ELIZABETH DEMPSEY GOODLOW AND MILLIE HAMILTON HARRIS VERSUS AMOS HAMILTON AUGUST 23, 2019

In Re: Amos Hamilton, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 96334.

BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER; STAY DENIED. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in increasing the suspensive appeal bond to $700,000. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2124(B) (3), a trial court shall fix security "at an amount sufficient to assure the satisfaction of the judgment, together with damages for the delay resulting from the suspension of the execution." Plaintiffs, as the movers, introduced no evidence or documentation regarding the amount of damages that they would suffer resulting from suspension of the execution of the judgment being appealed, and there was no evidence establishing the sufficiency or insufficiency of the original bond amount. See La Code Civ. P. arts. 963 and 5123. However, we find that the original suspensive appeal bond set at $1, 000 was insufficient and further find that the bond should be determined by the interest plaintiffs could earn on the money realized by any sale of property contemplated in the judgment suspensively appealed. Palmisano v. Lake Forest Boulevard Med. Dev., 413 So.2d 913 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1982); Ingolia v. Pique, 139 So.2d 34 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, the trial court's July 26, 2019 judgment increasing the suspensive appeal bond in this case to $700,000 is vacated, and the suspensive appeal bond is hereby reduced to $130, 635, which is the product of three- fourths of the appraised value of the land ($2,177,250) and the current judicial interest rate of 6% for a period of one year. La. R.S. 9:3500(B)(l); La. R.S. 13:4202(B). Defendant is ordered to post the supplemental bond within four days, exclusive of legal holidays, of the date of this court's action in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 5124.

TMH AHP WIL

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

PUTY F COURT FOR THE COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rudolph Dempsey, Jr., Elizabeth Dempsey Goodlow and Millie Hamilton Harris v. Amos Hamilton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rudolph-dempsey-jr-elizabeth-dempsey-goodlow-and-millie-hamilton-harris-lactapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack