Opinion
NO. 2017 CU 0045
06-02-2017
LACIE JOHNSTON v. JACOB KERSEY
ROBERT D. LEVENSTEIN LAPLACE, LA ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT LACIE JOHNSTON MICHAEL BETTS DENHAM SPRINGS, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE JACOB KERSEY
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION Appealed from the 21st Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Livingston, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 133477
Honorable Jeffrey C. Cashe, Judge ROBERT D. LEVENSTEIN
LAPLACE, LA ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
LACIE JOHNSTON MICHAEL BETTS
DENHAM SPRINGS, LA ATTORNEY FOR
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JACOB KERSEY BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND PENZATO, JJ. PETTIGREW, J.
This matter comes before us following a petition for custody, filed in the 21st Judicial District Court, on behalf of appellant/mother for a change in the custody determination of her minor son. Appellant/mother sought sole custody, subject to supervised visitation. In response, appellee/father filed a motion to modify custody, alleging a material change in circumstances had occurred, such that the prior custodial arrangement should be modified.
On August 18, 2015, the trial court rendered judgment, awarding joint custody to the parties, with appellee/father designated as the domiciliary parent. The trial court further ordered that appellant/mother would enjoy "specific periods of physical custody" as detailed in the Joint Custody Plan attached to the judgment. Thereafter, appellant/mother filed a motion for new trial. On October 12, 2016, the trial court denied the motion for new trial regarding the issue of domiciliary parent status, but granted appellant/mother a hearing to determine a better visitation schedule.
We note that the decretal language of the August 18, 2015 judgment contains a typographical error in that the parties are awarded joint custody of "Kaysen Brian Colkmire," who is not their minor child as noted earlier in the judgment and elsewhere in the record. However, because appellant/mother filed a motion to dismiss the instant appeal based on modifications since the August 18, 2015 judgment, we will leave any correction, if necessary, to be handled by the parties in the trial court below. --------
Appellant/mother appealed the August 18, 2015 judgment, and oral argument for the appeal was docketed for April 26, 2017. However, while the matter was pending before this court, appellant/mother filed a motion to dismiss her appeal, noting that "the circumstances of this case at the trial court [had] been modified making the necessity of this appeal a moot issue." Because no answer to the appeal or other formal action to amend or modify the August 18, 2015 judgment has been filed, we hereby grant appellant/mother's motion to dismiss the appeal in accordance with Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.2 (A)(3). Heine v. City/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2001-1927, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/27/02), 835 So.2d 558, 559-560; Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-8.4. Appeal costs are assessed equally between the parties.