Succession of Christopher Edward Gavin

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 19, 2014
• Docket: CA-0014-1003
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 14-1003

SUCCESSION OF CHRISTOPHER EDWARD GAVIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 87,231, DIV. B HONORABLE JOHN C. FORD, DISTRICT JUDGE

SYLVIA R. COOKS

JUDGE

Court composed of Judges Sylvia R. Cooks, Billy H. Ezell and Shannon J. Gremillion.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Angelo Joseph Piazza, III Attorney at Law Post Office Box 429 Marksville, LA 71351 (318) 253-6423 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Alexis Jade Debellevue

Patricia Gavin Sandberg 2475 Virginia Ave, #323 Washington, DC 20037 (703) 439-4403 IN PROPER PERSON APPELLANT: Patricia Gavin Sandberg Christopher Patrick Gavin Post Office Box 626 Thayne, WY 83127 IN PROPER PERSON APPELLEE: Christopher Patrick Gavin COOKS, Judge.

This court issued a rule for pro se appellant, Patricia Gavin, to show cause,

by brief only, why this appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

non-appealable, interlocutory ruling. For the reasons below, we hereby dismiss

the appeal.

On March 25, 2014, the trial court denied the appellant’s “Request for

Production of Tax and Military Records of Christopher Edward Gavin Due to

Fraud and Nondisclosure of Marital Assets Converted to Satisfy a Debt to the

United States Government.” Notice of judgment was issued on March 27, 2014.

On May 23, 2014, the appellant filed an Order for Appeal, seeking a devolutive

appeal of the trial court’s ruling. The trial court construed the order as a motion for

an appeal, and a devolutive appeal was granted. Upon receipt of the record, this

court, on its own motion, issued a rule to show cause why the appellant’s appeal

should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory

ruling.

A “Motion for Continuance to File Objections to Motion to Dismiss and

Brief on the Merits with Application in Forma Pauperis,” with supporting

documents, was received from the appellant on October 15, 2014. The Appellant

states therein that she requests a continuance of thirty days, not for the purpose of

delay, but to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The appellant,

however, fails to argue in her brief why the appeal should not be dismissed as

having been taken from a non-appealable, interlocutory ruling.

The judgment appealed, which denied the appellant’s “Request for

Production of Tax and Military Records of Christopher Edward Gavin Due to

Fraud and Nondisclosure of Marital Assets Converted to Satisfy a Debt to the United States Government,” does not decide the merits of this case and is

interlocutory. La.Code Civ.P. art. 1841. As no statute expressly provides for an

appeal of this interlocutory ruling, we find that the appeal must be dismissed.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 2083.

This court, in the interest of justice, permits parties—who use the improper

procedural vehicle of appeal instead of supervisory writs—to file a writ application

when a motion for appeal is filed within thirty days of the trial court’s ruling. See,

e.g., Williamson v. Dresser, Inc., 07-672 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/15/07), 964 So.2d 444.

In doing so, we construe the motion for appeal as a notice of intent to seek a

supervisory writ. Id. Here, the motion for appeal was not filed within thirty days

of notice of judgment; thus, the motion for appeal cannot be construed as a timely

notice of intent to seek supervisory writs. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the

instant appeal at appellant’s cost and decline to enter an order permitting the filing

of an application for supervisory writ.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.