Opinion
2014 CA 0644
05-20-2015
ROBERT M. BOYCE, JR. AND LAUREN G. BOYCE v. MARIE TYLER
Joshua D. Roy Roy H. Maughan, Jr. Namisha D. Patel Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff-in- Intervention-Appellant Michael Tyler James M. Garner Elwood F. Cahill, Jr. John T. Balhoff, III Ryan O. Luminais New Orleans, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant-in Intervention-Appellee Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER C602444, SECTION 22, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. KELLEY, JUDGE Joshua D. Roy
Roy H. Maughan, Jr.
Namisha D. Patel
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiff-in-
Intervention-Appellant
Michael Tyler
James M. Garner
Elwood F. Cahill, Jr.
John T. Balhoff, III
Ryan O. Luminais
New Orleans, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant-in
Intervention-Appellee
Commonwealth Land Title
Insurance Company
BEFORE: PETTIGREW, WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ. Disposition: APPEAL DISMISSED. CHUTZ, J.
Plaintiff-in-intervention-appellant, Michael Tyler, appealed the trial court's judgment, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-in-intervention-appellee, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Commonwealth), based on a finding that Tyler's usufruct of immovable property located at 18420 Grand Cypress Creek, Baton Rouge, Louisiana (the property), terminated as a result of the sale of that property on November 28, 2006, in this lawsuit for breach of warranty of title. In his appeal, Tyler urged outstanding issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. He also challenged the propriety of the trial court's denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment.
By the trial court's order on January 11, 2012, Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company was substituted as plaintiff in this litigation.
Tyler averred entitlement to (1) an acknowledgement of his rights as a usufructary with a legal usufruct burdening the property; (2) eviction of Commonwealth; (3) corporeal possession of the property; (4) reimbursement for any civil or natural fruits; and (5) an accounting along with legal interest, attorney's fees, and all costs of the proceeding.
--------
The matter was fixed for oral argument on the court's docket for April 27, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. As may be seen by the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, filed on April 22, 2015, and made part of this opinion by reference, the parties have compromised all disputes between them.
Because the parties have settled this matter, the issues raised by appellant on appeal are moot and are not properly before this court at this time. Courts may not decide cases that are moot, or where no justiciable controversy exists. An issue is moot when it has been deprived of practical significance and has been made abstract or purely academic. McLain v. Mann , 2006-1174 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/4/07), 961 So.2d 415, 417. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as moot. In accordance with their agreement, each party will bear their own costs associated with this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.