Marshall v. Marshall

25 Citing cases

  1. In re Jackson

    102 B.R. 524 (Bankr. M.D. La. 1989)   Cited 6 times

    Caire v. Caire, 452 So.2d 194 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1984); Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1980). The $2,013.

  2. Harper v. Harper

    No. 07-1203 (La. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2008)

    Judicial interest on past due child support accrues from the date each payment is due. See Miller v. Miller, 321 So.2d 318 (La. 1975) and Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La. 1980). Here, the June 3, 1998 stipulated judgment provided that Mr. Harper's child support obligation was suspended "until further orders of this Honorable Court."

  3. Bickham v. Bickham

    849 So. 2d 707 (La. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 14 times

    Judicial interest on past due child support and spousal support accrues from the date each payment is due, rather than from the date of demand, as alleged by Dr. Bickham. See Miller v. Miller, 321 So.2d 318 (1975); Thompson v. Courville, 372 So.2d 579 (1979); Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (1980). The court was correct in awarding interest to Mrs. Bickham on the past due amounts from the date each was due, and this portion of Dr. Bickham's first assignment of error is without merit.

  4. Strahan v. Maytag Corp.

    760 So. 2d 463 (La. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 9 times

    La.C.C.P. Art. 2163. See Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365, 1368 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1980), on remand 399 So.2d 1253, writ denied 405 So.2d 531 (La. 1981) (holding that a plea of prescription may be filed for the first time in an appellate court as long as it is presented in a formal pleading prior to the submission of the case for decision). Because Gregory Wilson has properly pleaded a peremptory exception of prescription, we will address the issue.

  5. Ward v. Dengle

    700 So. 2d 1310 (La. Ct. App. 1997)

    The issue presented for our review is whether this case has prescribed. Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365, 1368 (La.Ct. App. 4 Cir. 1980)(holding that a plea of prescription may be filed for the first time in an appellate court as long as it is presented in a formal pleading prior to the submission of the case for decision). Ward's malpractice action prescribed by at least two months.

  6. Richardson v. Richardson

    631 So. 2d 114 (La. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 4 times

    In determining a contributing spouse's property and earnings for purposes of calculating alimony, income from all sources, including that of the second spouse, should be taken into consideration because that spouse shares in the joint obligation to contribute to their support and living expenses. Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365, 1372 n. 3 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), writ granted 396 So.2d 1329 (La. 1981), on remand, 399 So.2d 1253 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1981).

  7. Norvell v. Norvell

    629 So. 2d 1312 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 2 times

    Louisiana clearly follows the general rule that interest runs on alimony from the date each support payment becomes due. Miller v. Miller, 321 So.2d 318, 321 (La. 1975); Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), writ granted on other grounds 396 So.2d 1329 (La. 1981); Morgan v. Morgan, 452 So.2d 255 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1984); Chaudoir v. Chaudoir, 430 So.2d 280 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1983). Therefore, unless the terms of the Tennessee judgment clearly mandate that interest should run from the date each in solido payment was due to the escrow agent, the jurisprudence indicates that interest should accrue only from the date each payment was due to the plaintiff herself.

  8. Dupuy v. Riley

    557 So. 2d 703 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    Recognizing that oral contract for transfer of securities may be proven under article 1846 by one credible witness and proof of corroborating circumstances

    However, the caselaw has established that prescription may be pleaded at any time, even on appeal, prior to submission of the case for decision. Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), writ granted and remanded for consideration of prescription plea filed in Supreme Court, 396 So.2d 1329 (La. 1981). However, Donnelly did not brief the prescription issue prior to our decision; therefore it was considered abandoned under Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal 2-12.4.

  9. Gioustover v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co.

    561 So. 2d 961 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 12 times
    Holding prescription not interrupted as to alleged joint tortfeasor under article 2324(C) when timely sued defendants are found free from fault and dismissed from the lawsuit as a matter of law, since no joint or solidary obligation exists

    We agree with Allstate. Prescription can be raised on appeal for the first time provided it is raised before submission of the case for decision. Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980), writ den., 405 So.2d 531 (La. 1981). The law is clear that a suit filed timely against one joint tortfeasor, interrupts prescription as to other joint tortfeasors.

  10. Jeansonne v. Jeansonne

    550 So. 2d 973 (La. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    Maintenance includes the basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing and shelter. It also includes necessary transportation, automobile expenses, medical and drug expenses, utilities, household expenses and income tax liability resulting from payment. Frederic v. Frederic, 302 So.2d 903 (La. 1974); Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 283 So.2d 226 (La. 1973); Vial v. Vial, 422 So.2d 523 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1982); Hamiter v. Hamiter, 419 So.2d 517 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1982); Oddo v. Oddo, 416 So.2d 241 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1982); Kean v. Kean, 388 So.2d 398 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1980); Marshall v. Marshall, 390 So.2d 1365 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1980). Jordan v. Jordan, 432 So.2d 314 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1983)