State v. Byrd
This text of 640 So. 2d 259 (State v. Byrd) 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.
Opinion
A bonding company has appealed a trial court judgment dated July 14, 1992, which denied its motion to have set aside a judgment of bond forfeiture dated August 27, 1991. The bonding company’s motion was filed on March 2, 1992.
The record reveals that the trial court ordered the bond forfeited on August 27,1991, and that written notice to the surety was issued that date by the Clerk of Court for the 19th Judicial District Court. The notice triggered the running of a 60-day time period for opposing the forfeiture or for filing an appeal. LSA-R.S. 15:8s.1 The bonding company neither asserted a defense to the judgment of bond forfeiture nor perfected an appeal of the 1991 judgment within the 60-day time period. Thus, the motion filed by the bonding company came after the judgment Rof forfeiture had become final; consequently, the July 14,1992 judgment rendered on this motion was invalid. We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal by the bonding company because it is an appeal from the July 14,1992 judgment, which was an invalid judgment, and the appeal is untimely as to the bond forfeiture judgment. See Jones v. Gillen, 564 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 5th Cir.), writs denied 568 So.2d 1080, 1081 (La.1990.)
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal at appellant’s costs.
DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
640 So. 2d 259, 1993 La. App. LEXIS 3497, 1993 WL 475077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-byrd-lactapp-1993.