From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Demax Management Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 24, 2002
819 So. 2d 293 (La. 2002)

Opinion

No. 2002-C-0618.

May 24, 2002.

IN RE: Demax Management Inc. etal; Thibaut HG Corporation; Thibaut Properties C Corporation; Central Village Apartments; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. A, Nos. 2000-6646; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2001-CA-0692

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS

GRANTED WITH ORDER


Granted. See order.

JPV

PFC

CDK

BJJ

CDT

JTK

JLW


The ruling of the court of appeal is reversed and set aside. The court of appeal erred in deciding that the motion for new trial was untimely. La.C.C.P. art. 1913 (A) requires notice of the signing of a final judgment in all contested cases, and requires that the notice be mailed by the clerk of court to counsel of record for each party, and to each party not represented by counsel. In the case of a default judgment, La.C.C.P. art. 1913 (B) requires that the sheriff serve the notice of default judgment through personal or domiciliary service, on a defendant on whom citation was not served personally, and La.C.C.P. art. 1913 (C) requires that, in the case of a defendant on whom citation was served personally, the notice be mailed by the clerk of court to the defendant at the address where personal service was obtained or the last known address of the defendant. La.C.C.P. art. 1974 provides that the delay for asking for a new trial does not commence until the day after the clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, the notice of judgment as required by Article 1913.

In this case, there is no Notice of Signing of Judgment in the record as required by La.C.C.P. art. 1913. Further, there is nothing in the record to show that service of the notice of judgment was made as required by Article 1913. Thus, the time period proscribed in La.C.C.P. art. 1974 had not begun to run when the defendants filed their motion for new trial. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider plaintiff's appeal of the trial court ruling sustaining the exception of prescription.


Summaries of

Bell v. Demax Management Inc.

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 24, 2002
819 So. 2d 293 (La. 2002)
Case details for

Bell v. Demax Management Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CALVIN BELL v. DEMAX MANAGEMENT INC., THIBAUT HG CORPORATION, THIBAUT…

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: May 24, 2002

Citations

819 So. 2d 293 (La. 2002)

Citing Cases

Sims v. Barrios

See La.C.C.P. arts. 1974, 2087, and 2123. It is "well settled that . . . delays do not begin to run until…

Preston v. S. Univ.

The record does not contain the notice of the signing of the June 26, 2017 judgment, and the parties agree…