Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2021

Mary Sue Marioneaux and the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, F/B/O Mary Sue Marioneaux v. Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Sr., Individually and as former trustee of the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Jr., Marioneaux Properties, L.P., HBM Interests, L.L.C., Eighty Acres, L.L.C., and Wallace Lake Marioneaux, L.L.C.

Mary Sue Marioneaux and the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, F/B/O Mary Sue Marioneaux v. Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Sr., Individually and as former trustee of the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Jr., Marioneaux Properties, L.P., HBM Interests, L.L.C., Eighty Acres, L.L.C., and Wallace Lake Marioneaux, L.L.C.
Louisiana Court of Appeal · Decided March 11, 2021

Mary Sue Marioneaux and the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, F/B/O Mary Sue Marioneaux v. Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Sr., Individually and as former trustee of the Lela Mae Johnson Marioneaux Trust, Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Jr., Marioneaux Properties, L.P., HBM Interests, L.L.C., Eighty Acres, L.L.C., and Wallace Lake Marioneaux, L.L.C.

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT MARY SUE MARIONEAUX AND THE NO. 2021 CW 0205 LELA MAE JOHNSON MARIONEAUX TRUST F/ B/ O MARY SUE MARIONEAUX

VERSUS

LUCIEN HARRY MARIONEAUX, SR., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE LELA MAE JOHNSON MARIONEAUX TRUST, LUCIEN HARRY MARIONEAUX, JR., MARIONEAUX PROPERTIES L. P., HBM INTERESTS, L. L. C., EIGHTY ACRES, Z. L. C., AND WALLACE LAKE MARIONEAUX, L. L. C. MARCH 11, 2021

In Re: Succession of Lucien H. Marioneaux, Sr., Lucien H.

Marioneaux, Jr., Marioneaux Properties, L. P., HBM Interests, LLC, and Wallace Lake Marioneaux, LLC, applying for supervisory writs, 1st Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, No. 588685.

BEFORE: McDONALD, HOLDRIDGE, AND PENZATO, JJ.

STAY DENIED; WRIT GRANTED. The trial court' s February 2, 2021 ruling which increased the amount of the suspensive appeal bond to $ 4, 500, 000 is reversed. Pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 2124( B) ( 3) , a trial court shall fix security " at an amount sufficient to assure the satisfaction of the judgment, together with damages for the delay resulting from the suspension of the execution." Plaintiffs, the as movers, introduced no evidence regarding the amount sufficient to assure satisfaction of the judgment or of the amount sufficient for damages that they would suffer from resulting suspension of the execution of the judgment being appealed. See La Code Civ. P. arts. 963 and 5123.

imm AHP

Holdridge, J., concurs. Relator is not precluded from filing a motion to increase the amount of the suspensive appeal bond supported by sufficient evidence and determined at a contradictory hearing.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTYCL RK OF COURT FOR THE COURT

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.