Succession of Glenda S. Love

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: CA-0025-0141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 25-141 consolidated with CA 25-142

SUCCESSION OF GLENDA S. LOVE

consolidated with

PAMELA R. CLARK (F/K/A SMITH) INDEPENDENT EXECUTRIX OF THE SUCCESSION OF GLENDA S. LOVE

VERSUS

RANDY AND SEBRINA MCLAUGHLIN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 46,172 C/W 275,419 HONORABLE MONIQUE F. RAULS, DISTRICT JUDGE

VAN H. KYZAR JUDGE

Court composed of Van H. Kyzar, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Wilbur L. Stiles, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS. Pamela R. Clark In Proper Person 512 A County Road 1114 Hemphill, TX 75948 (000) 000-0000 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Pamela R. Clark

Stacy Christopher Auzenne Auzenne Law Firm P. O. Box 11817 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 880-0087 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS: Randy McLaughlin Sabrina McLaughlin Kyzar, Judge.

On March 10, 2025, this court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering the

Defendants-Appellants, Randy and Sabrina McLaughlin, to show cause, by brief only,

why the appeal in this matter should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

non-appealable, interlocutory order. Plaintiff filed a response to the rule. For the

reasons given herein, we dismiss the appeal.

This matter began as a probate proceeding when Pamela Clark probated a copy

of a 2016 will executed by her mother, Glenda Love. That will divided her estate

equally among her children, Pamela and Randy, and made Pamela executrix of the

estate. Randy alleges that, just months prior to her death, Glenda executed a seperate

olographic will leaving her entire estate to him. In the trial court below, the court

initially ruled that the olographic will would be probated. Pamela filed a motion for

new trial, which was denied by the trial court. She sought supervisory writs from that

decision from this court, which were also denied. However, when Pamela filed

another motion for new trial, claiming expert testimony was needed regarding a

challenge to Glenda’s handwriting on the purported olographic will, the trial court

granted a new trial. From that decision, Randy and his wife, Sabrina, seek the current

appeal.

Upon the lodging of the appeal, this court issued a rule to show cause why the

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

interlocutory judgment. In response to the rule to show cause, Defendants-Appellants

filed a response brief wherein they conceded “some courts may find this to be an

Interlocutory Ruling.” This court is one of those courts. As noted in Ogbebor v.

Lafayette Gen. Med. Ctr., 18-296, p.3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 8/1/18), 252 So.3d 1019, 1021

(quoting McGinn v. Crescent City Connection Bridge Auth., 15-165, p. 4 (La.App. 4

Cir. 7/22/15), 174 So.3d 145, 148), writ denied, 18-1473 (La. 11/20/18), 256 So.3d

988: “[o]ur jurisprudence clearly establishes that the grant of a motion for new trial is a not a final, appealable judgment, but rather, an interlocutory judgment.” See also

Simmons v. Beauregard Par. Sch. Bd., 284 So. 2d 668, 669 (La. Ct. App. 1973)(“Our

jurisprudence is clear that a judgment granting a new trial is neither a final judgment

nor an interlocutory judgment which causes irreparable injury); La.Code Civ.P. arts.

1841, 1915.

Thus, no issues regarding the motion for new trial are properly before this

Court on appeal. Accordingly, any allegations of error concerning that motion for

new trial cannot be considered and this appeal must be dismissed.

However, we note that Defendants-Appellants filed their motion to appeal

within the thirty-day period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory

writs. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 4–3. In the interest of justice, this

court may permit a party to file a writ application when a motion for appeal is filed

within thirty days of the trial court’s ruling. Rain CII Carbon, LLC v. Turner

Industries Group, LLC, 14-121 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/19/14), 161 So.3d 688. Accordingly,

we exercise our discretion and construe the motion for appeal as a notice of intent to

file for supervisory writs. The appeals in docket numbers 25-141 and 25-142 are

hereby dismissed, and Appellant is given until April 28, 2025, to file a properly

documented application for supervisory writs pursuant to Uniform Rules—Courts of

Appeal, Rule 4–5.

APPEAL DISMISSED. APPELLANT PERMITTED TO FILE APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRITS.