Schlegel v. Schlegel

367 So. 2d 904, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3491
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 28, 1979
DocketNo. 10203
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 367 So. 2d 904 (Schlegel v. Schlegel) 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
Schlegel v. Schlegel, 367 So. 2d 904, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3491 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

LEMMON, Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss, as untimely, an appeal from a judgment which denied a motion to change custody and dismissed a rule to cumulate past due child support payments and for contempt. The decision turns on whether the delay for applying for a new trial began in relation to August 28, 1978, the day the judgment was rendered and signed, or to August 31, 1978, the day notice of the signing of the judgment was mailed. We hold that the seven-day delay for applying for a new trial began to run on September 1, 1978 and expired on September 12, 1978 (September 4 being a legal holiday), and the 30-day delay for appealing began to run on September 13, 1978 and expired on October 12, 1978, so that the appeal filed on October 10,1978 was timely.

At the close of the hearing on August 7, 1978, the trial judge stated he “will deny the new rule for custody” and instructed counsel to prepare a judgment. Signifi[905]*905cantly, the judge left the matter open in order to allow the parties to work out the dispute over past due child support and indicated that the judgment should contain the disposition of that dispute.

Under these circumstances the matter should be regarded as having been taken under advisement, so that the delay for appealing did not commence until mailing of the notice of signing of the judgment.1 C.C.P. art. 1913. This view is in accord with the public policy of maintaining appeals whenever possible.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

MOTION DENIED.

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

Related

Potter v. Patterson
690 So. 2d 1118 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Gilcrease v. Gilcrease
438 So. 2d 658 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1983)
Bride v. Thom
378 So. 2d 152 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
367 So. 2d 904, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlegel-v-schlegel-lactapp-1979.