From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chambers v. LeBlanc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 1, 1992
598 So. 2d 337 (La. 1992)

Summary

holding venue is "proper" for purposes of R.S. 9:5605 for a malpractice claim based on an attorney's failure to make a timely filing in either the parish where the attorney practices or the parish where the suit should have been filed

Summary of this case from Jarreau v. Gibbs

Opinion

No. 92-CC-0587.

May 1, 1992.

APPEAL FROM 21ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON, DIVISION "A", STATE OF LOUISIANA.


Writ granted.

While a judgment erroneously overruling an exception of venue cannot as a practical matter be corrected on appeal and is therefore arguably appealable under La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 2083 because irreparable injury may result, an appellate court need not defer review of a judgment on a simple venue issue to the appellate process. On plaintiffs' request we therefore expedite review of the trial court's judgment on the venue issue (brought by defendants' application for supervisory writs to the court of appeal), rather than requiring plaintiffs to wait for disposition of the issue through the normal appellate process.

This legal malpractice action was brought in Livingston Parish, plaintiffs' domicile, against an attorney, who is domiciled in Iberville Parish and practices in Ascension Parish, for failing to file a timely suit in East Baton Rouge Parish. The trial court overruled the exception of improper venue on the basis that plaintiffs sustained damages in Livingston Parish, making venue proper under La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 74.

When damage is caused to the plaintiff in the parish where the wrongful conduct occurred, then that parish is the parish of proper venue under Article 74, even if the plaintiff is in the parish of his domicile at the time of the wrongful conduct or if the damage progresses in the parish of the plaintiff's domicile. Belser v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 509 So.2d 12 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1987). Here, the wrongful conduct occurred either in Ascension Parish or East Baton Rouge Parish, but clearly not in Livingston Parish, which is therefore not a parish of proper venue under Article 74.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court overruling the exception of venue is reversed, and the exception is maintained. The case is remanded to the trial court to transfer the action to a parish of proper venue.

CALOGERO, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ and docket the matter for argument.


Summaries of

Chambers v. LeBlanc

Supreme Court of Louisiana
May 1, 1992
598 So. 2d 337 (La. 1992)

holding venue is "proper" for purposes of R.S. 9:5605 for a malpractice claim based on an attorney's failure to make a timely filing in either the parish where the attorney practices or the parish where the suit should have been filed

Summary of this case from Jarreau v. Gibbs

In Chambers v. LeBlanc, 598 So.2d 337 (La. 1992), the plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice action in Livingston Parish, the parish of their domicile, against an attorney who was domiciled and practiced law in Ascension Parish.

Summary of this case from Wharton v. Ridgell

In Chambers v. LeBlanc, 598 So.2d 337 (La. 1992), the plaintiff filed a legal malpractice action in Livingston Parish, his domicile, against an attorney who was domiciled in Iberville Parish and practiced in Ascension Parish, for failure to timely file a suit in East Baton Rouge Parish.

Summary of this case from Jarreau v. Gibbs

In Chambers, supra, the plaintiffs, who were domiciled in Livingston Parish, filed a legal malpractice suit there against an attorney who was domiciled in Iberville Parish and practiced in Ascension Parish. The basis of the suit was that the attorney failed to file a timely suit in East Baton Rouge Parish. Concluding that the plaintiffs sustained damages in Livingston Parish and that venue was proper under La. C.C.P. art. 74, the trial court overruled the defendant's exception of improper venue.

Summary of this case from Chumley v. White

In Chambers v. LeBlanc, 598 So.2d 337 (La. 1992), the supreme court examined venue in the context of a legal malpractice action.

Summary of this case from Clarendon Nat. v. Carter

In Chambers, a legal malpractice claim was filed in the parish of the plaintiff's domicile based upon the attorney's failure to file a suit timely.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Torres
Case details for

Chambers v. LeBlanc

Case Details

Full title:BENNY AND ANNA CHAMBERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILD…

Court:Supreme Court of Louisiana

Date published: May 1, 1992

Citations

598 So. 2d 337 (La. 1992)

Citing Cases

Blitch Architects, Inc. v. Avenue Partnership

4 Cir. 1990), writ denied, 572 So.2d 91 (La. 1991) is inapposite. There was no question of venue before the…

Belwise Aquaculture v. Lemke

" (Emphasis added.) The Louisiana Supreme Court considered the issue of venue in a legal malpractice case in…