Frank L. Maxie, Et Ux. v. Harmie Maxie

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 12-1240

FRANK L. MAXIE, ET UX.

VERSUS HARMIE MAXIE, ET AL.

********** APPEAL FROM THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF SABINE, NO. 63,115 HONORABLE STEPHEN BRUCE BEASLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE ********** Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Phyllis M. Keaty, and John E. Conery, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

William Daniel Dyess Dyess Law Firm, LLC Church Street Suite Natchitoches, LA 71457 (318) 352-5880 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES: Frank L. Maxie Jacqueline Maxie Jeffrey Howerton Thomas Thomas Law firm Post Office Box 2177 Natchitoches, LA 71457-2177 (318) 352-6455 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Harmie Maxie Learlean Hudson Mary Joe Coutee PICKETT, Judge.

A final judgment was rendered in this case on June 25, 2012. The clerk of court’s office for the district court sent notice of the rendition of judgment to counsel on June 26, 2012. The defendant, Harmie Maxie, filed a motion for new trial on July 5, 2012. By judgment signed July 6, 2012, the trial court denied defendant Maxie’s motion for new trial as untimely filed.

The defendant Maxie filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory writs from the denial of the motion for new trial with the trial court. The writ application was filed in this court on August 31, 2012. Meanwhile, the defendant Maxie filed a motion for a devolutive appeal from the final judgment of June 25, 2012. The record in this appeal was lodged in this court on October 26, 2012.

On November 30, 2012, this court entered judgment on the writ application.

In this judgment, this court ruled that the motion for new trial had been timely filed.

Therefore, this court set aside the trial court’s denial of the motion for new trial and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Thus, this court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the defendant Maxie to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature, citing La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(D), due to the pending motion for new trial. This court received a letter from counsel for defendant Maxie stating that the motion for new trial has been set for hearing. Since there is an extant motion for new trial, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal as premature. La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(D). Assessment of the costs for this appeal is to await further proceedings.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.

Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.