Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164, appellate courts "have the power to remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitely on the issues presented or where the parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision." Bodin v. Bodin , 392 So.2d 759, 762 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1980). Furthermore, La.Code Civ.P. art. 2161 provides, in part, that "[a]n appeal shall not be dismissed because the trial record is missing, incomplete or in error no matter who is responsible, and the court may remand the case either for retrial or for correction of the record."
However, appellate courts are given the power to remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitely on the issues presented or where the parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1980); Dardar v. Texoma Contractors, Inc., 446 So.2d 890, 893, (La.App. 1 Cir. 1984).
An appellate court is given the power to remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitively on the issues presented or where the parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1980). It is fair and logically consistent with existing jurisprudence to remand this case for submission of additional competent evidence by the parties material to the issues raised. La. Code Civ.P. arts. 2132 and 2161.
Appellate courts are given the power to remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitely on the issues presented or where the parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980). It is fair and logically consistent with existing jurisprudence to remand the case to allow the parties to submit additional competent evidence showing the value of Mr. Myers' retirement plan at the time of the partition; his entitlement to full ownership of the retirement benefits in consideration of the partition agreement; and for other legal evidence supporting the value figures assigned to the movable community assets by the court. I do not share the majority factual summation of Mrs. Myers' testimony regarding the parties' respective liability for the home mortgage.
The record on appeal is completely devoid of any evidence pertaining to the allegations raised in either the petition of intervention or the plaintiff's answer thereto. It is well-established in Louisiana jurisprudence that an appellate court can remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitively on presented issues or where the parties have failed, for whatever reasons, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. Dangerfield v. Harris, 484 So.2d 838 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986); Cheramie v. Bone, 444 So.2d 200 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983); Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980). We determine that in the interest of justice, this intervention should be remanded to the trial court for trial on the merits.
This matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of plaintiff's demands against E J Insurance Agency, Inc., Joy Devillier and Employers Reinsurance Company. La.C.C.P. art. 2164; Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980). Albert Duhon is cast with all costs of this appeal.
It is well-established in Louisiana jurisprudence that an appellate court can remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitively on presented issues or where the parties have failed for whatever reasons to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. Dangerfield v. Harris, 484 So.2d 838 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986); Cheramie v. Bone, 444 So.2d 200 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983); Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980). We determine that, in the interests of justice, this case should be remanded to the district court with instructions to reopen the record for evidence concerning the date upon which the Tax Board denied the rehearing and the date upon which the plaintiff first received notice of the denial.
Apart from the internal inconsistency of the majority's opinion (and assuming arguendo that liabilities are to be fixed at the time of termination), I feel that the evidence in the record is so incomplete that this court is unable to reach a just decision as to the amount of liabilities burdening Pitre Distributor ship at the time of termination. La.C.C.P. art. 2164; Cheramie v. Bone, 444 So.2d 200 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983); Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980). As I feel that this case should be reversed and remanded for the reasons stated above, I dissent.
Under the authority of LSA-C.C.P. art. 2164 we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to reopen the record for evidence of the nature and extent of Campbell's disability, and the amount of compensation he is owed. See Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1980) and authorities therein cited. REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
However, appellate courts are given the power to remand an action for proper consideration when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounce definitively on the issues presented or where the parties have failed, for whatever reason, to produce available evidence material to a proper decision. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2164; Dardar v. Texoma Contractors, Inc., 446 So.2d 890 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1984); Crews v. Crews, 432 So.2d 377 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983); Bodin v. Bodin, 392 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1980). Under the particular circumstances of this case, we feel that the interest of justice requires that the judgment of the trial court as to the child support award be reversed and the case be remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of child support.