Succession of Armond Jay Keen
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOillSIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2006 CA 0602 SUCCESSION OF ARMOND JAY KEEN Judgment On mf1 1M I l j Twenty First Judicial District Court and For the Parish of Tangipahoa Appeal from In Rendered the State of Louisiana Docket No 2000 030363 Honorable Ernest G Drake Jr Linda R Keen Loranger LA Judge Presiding Appellant In Proper Person Brenda Braud Intervenor Hammond LA In BEFORE Proper Appellee Person P ARRO GillDRY AND McCLENDON JJ M j 2007 McCLENDON J this succession In of the trial judgment following reasons trial court on a motion for s we failure to which ruled court dismiss the rule a motion to For the Additionally due in part appeal nullify to recuse the appeals several motions on outstanding motions on trial and new the wife of the deceased matter prior we must vacate to the to ruling the denial of the motions and remand FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Linda R Keen Braud in several domestic billed were contract on Braud matters hourly basis an with Braud for Later representation the Succession of Armond Keen Jay 7 a judgment against With an March 28 2003 Braud was was and to awarded was Keen based on the the hourly fee judgment trial resulting in a judgment for Thereafter granted rendered and court costs and judgment having been a by Braud proceeding on an hourly basis contract contingency At 7 on a a hearing the merits 43 140 timely motion for Following taken under advisement judgment of Keen against Braud obtained result a claim portion to a and and arbitration award regard March 24 2003 As matters contingency fee a in the succession for services billed judgment against Keen 20 000 00 signed representation The services legal 43 140 resulting from Keen in this Braud legal services for these in her marital ultimately resulted in Braud intervening obtain payment for her s appellant of Braud legal services of Brenda Braud retained the matter the wife of the deceased and the on which new May subsequent hearing signed for 7 43 140 and the filed on by the motion August 18 2003 additionally no the court notice of this parties until August 11 2004 2 held on signed was 19 2003 legal interest The record contains sent to was trial on was However Keen filed August 6 2004 on judgment August s motions Judgment regard Association at on 20 000 00 a Keen was judgment based judge judgment hearing was signed on on nullify the to All of October 6 2004 on were contingency was made a a and award July 26 On judgment Keen filed remand a arbitration 1 2003 a fee contract the Louisiana State Bar to amended an October 30 on August 6 2004 The motions Keen has st of the 21 motion for a of 2004 Judicial trial from new request for the recusal of the heard and denied on October 6 2004 and October 28 2004 appealed the October 28 motions In her Motion Devolutive Appeal filed from the the on July 26 2004 judgment which included trial court Following arbitration request rendered On trial and request that the trial judge be recused a hearing the award District Court new October 28 2004 the s August 18 2003 motion supplemental heard and denied in open arbitration supplemental the to a said motion for a had been submitted for arbitration matter following were signed was With the filed which included judgment Keen Keen 2004 19 annul to Keen filed August 16 2004 on motion a for on 2004 Suspensive Appeal Alternatively or November 30 2004 Keen desires Judgment that dismissed all her claims her judgment denying on the 28th to a appeal of October 2004 In her pro court 1 In its se appellate Essentially she original brief Keen asserts that the trial arbitration award rendered determined that the contingency assigns several on court errors erred in December 14 2001 of the trial finding a valid the arbitrator had fee contract entered into between Keen and Braud was Keen s succession was still open and Keen s determined the arbitration remained open for a later marital portion was not yet quantification of the amount On February 10 2003 the arbitrator quantified the award valid and enforceable but because Mr in the amount of 20 000 00 30 2003 to include 12 Thereafter the arbitrator amended the award interest as provided in 3 the contingency fee contract on October arbitration award and Keen also asserts unfairness Generally in the making the arbitration award rulings of the trial a judgment prejudice and of the court lack of due process a court DISCUSSION Outstanding Motions Initially address the we Keen and Braud filed motions to filed 18 motion a 2003 and Keen s motion to 12 supplement the record with to judgment and a st copy of the appeal Keen from the August We court hereby grant bond a copy of the March 28 a 2003 February 11 2005 letter from the Clerk of Court Judicial District Court suspensive appeal Both on transcripts hearings of the trial 2004 court supplement the record with the transcripts Braud filed motion and of the 21 supplement the record the record with the supplement July motions before this pending notifying the parties of the setting of We also grant Braud s motion and supplement a the record with these documents Braud additionally filed for the failure appeal to from the devolutive 2003 August 18 2003 same date s bond and We need not address the motion been dismissed suspensive appeal to dismiss Keen judgment awarding hourly fees as A review of the record reflects that the regard to judgment hourly fees dismiss Keen and the appeal it as pertains s being to the suspensive appeal has been converted to a appeal With 18 to suspensive appeal a suspensive appeal already motion timely post untimely altogether has a was Braud as s motion to dismiss the being untimely the trial rendered in open court on However the record contains 4 appeal from the August court August 18 no s judgment regarding 2003 and evidence of the signed that mailing of the notice of this filed a 11 judgment until August motion for new 2004 On August 16 2004 trial Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1974 for a new trial be filed within seven mailing of the notice of the judgment from the record 2 requires that Thus motion a holidays of the exclusive of days missing the record before are Keen despite argument that pages is devoid of any evidence us of the mailing of the notice of the signing of the judgment until August 2004 Therefore on August 16 2004 when Keen filed her motion for a trial of the August 18 2003 had not 2087 2123 For appeal had an reasons that will be trial and appeal delays have still Braud motion s judgment 2 as Article 1974 to begun not more not dismiss Keen art to See LSA C C P run commenced and therefore we the arts fully explained herein the new deny 2003 being untimely altogether provides The exclusive delay for applying for a new trial shall of legal holidays The delay for applying commences to run on the day served the notice ofjudgment Article 1913 Accordingly 1974 appeal from the August 18 s new delays for applying for a new trial See LSA C C P yet commenced delays for taking the judgment 11 provides in after the clerk has mailed as required by Article be seven for a or new days trial the sheriff has 1913 pertinent part provided by law notice of the signing of a final judgment including a partial final judgment under Article 1915 is required in all contested cases and shall be mailed by the clerk of court to the counsel of record for each party and to each party not represented by A Except as otherwise counsel D The clerk shall file a and the counsel and on which the certificate in the record parties to whom showing the date signing of notice of the judgment was mailed Although not applicable here we note that 2006 La Acts No 337 S paragraph E to Article 1913 permitting under certain conditions waiver of the signing ofthe judgment on contested matters 5 1 added notice of The We for New Motion 1 Motion to Hourly Fees regarding the July 26 filed on August 6 2004 18 2003 2004 Judgment of August 18 2003 Pertaining filed on August 6 2004 Annul Motion for Reasons and New Trial 3 follows were as Trial arbitration award judgment 2 motions which pending s The October 28 appealed by Keen examine what has been now judgment disposed of Keen 2004 Appeal judgment filed on August to regarding the August 16 2004 and Supplement New Trial Motions Filed 8 6 04 and 8 16 04 filed on August 19 2004 4 With it a to regard judgment of the and notice motion for no to Recuse Motion new motion for to the arbitration award 21 sent was and st Judicial District Court Keen had until that date trial and until October 4 2004 new trial was filed untimely Further since appeal delays 2004 4 2004 devolutive a not July 26 2004 on file a motion for s delays had file her not this run appeal court appeal new not s On that 3 appeal 26 2004 Keen filed date she also filed This motion to if was suspend until November 30 is without jurisdiction to portion is dismissed August 6 2004 same a new trial review the July 26 2004 arbitration award judgment Therefore that of Keen file to motion for untimely motion for new trial does and since Keen did well after all file to Keen August 6 2004 and therefore signed August Keen did timely trial until an was making the judgment judgment recuse was a a motion Motion included in Keen judgment We make no comment as being relevant to our discussion said fact not 6 to s to recuse Annul the trial judge 3 On Judgment of August 18 Motion for New Trial regarding the to the timeliness ofthis motion to July recuse 2003 Pertaining Fees Hourly to for Reasons and New Trial judgment and On the Keen filed her Motion to Recuse and to judge was consistently ruled against her She alleged he trial court she had a s failure doctor to grant a 16 8 biased and no 5 04 In her motions to specific facts other than the continuance of the July 26 2004 cause or i may be recused when he or City 248 nature such and based biased s prejudiced prejudiced toward or extent an on more or than La p 3 or prejudice or against the parties is a interested in the to 1 Cir 12 31 03 or conduct required to conclusory allegations App that provides that he would be unable The bias City 03 0396 of Morgan be of a Augman 864 So 2d 249 The valid provisions ground recuse or set refer the motion Where the motion to recusation the trial While of LSA C C P art for recusation is himself hearing 4 to biased impartial proceedings substantial v outcome parties attorneys fair and hearing when s excuse judge the and that prejudiced Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 151B 5 its Motion a August 18 2003 hourly fee Trial Motions Filed 8 6 04 and Keen asserted that the trial recuse Keen filed August 16 2004 regarding August 19 2004 on Supplement New 4 we make no judge comment the a forth in the motion the judge shall either to another judge recuse fails to or a validity we note a grounds for referring the enunciate valid of this motion for judge ad hoc may overrule the motion without on If in relevant part 154 state that the annulment the judgment is not a proceeding which may be disposed of summarily under action for nullity must be instituted as provisions oflaw See LSA C C P art 2592 An an ordinary proceeding and requires citation and service See Bonaventure v Pourciau of a 577 So 2d 742 746 La 941 La App 3 Cir Health Ass rehearing 5 n App 1 Cir 1991 writ denied 519 See also Veillon 2d So 105 La 1987 Veillon Dowl 22 12 04 917 p 3 La App 4 Cir 146 28 11 05 916 2d So 05 1187 La 04 1182 writ denied v In this last motion filed on August 19 2004 besides v 517 So 2d 936 Redi Care Home 2d So 434 seeking recusal ofthe 438 trial on judge Braud be set aside and previous judgments presented to the court by that the court render reasons for the July 26 2004 arbitration award judgment 14 2004 judgment which is not part ofthis appeal Keen asked that all 7 and a July matter to another judge Furthermore ntil u 3 4 864 So 2d 03 0396 at pp Augman judge has recused himself a recusation has been filed he has full power and LSA C C P cause judge denied Keen s motion for before he denied the motions Keen on s in the at motions the trial the motions 250 Fees filed 19 to Annul August on August 16 2004 2004 as the prior to denial of Keen s proceeding judge had the court to responsive some action further with substantive issues Augman 153 art of the merits of regardless take annul judgment no 864 So 2d 03 0396 at p 4 authority or power to act to on Hourly 2004 the Motion for Reasons and New Trial filed 6 Supplemental has motion for remand the matter to to Judgment of August 18 2003 Pertaining or in the to act clearly reflect that the 2004 Thus required outstanding motions this Accordingly motion for his a authority trial and motion new recuse was In other words the trial the Motion on to recuse to court See LSA C C P case 250 153 art In this matter the minutes of October 6 trial or at no to recuse had alternative but to new the trial New Trial Motion filed trial and motion court to not on August yet been decided vacate the trial judge annul judgment and to address these motions s to 6 CONCLUSION For the above Keen to reasons supplement the record appellee Brenda Braud dismiss Keen dismiss the denied we s to grant the motion of appellant Linda R Additionally supplement the record suspensive appeal is denied appeal from Further based arbitration award on the August 18 the reasons set judgment of July 26 6 we as 2003 moot grant the motion of Braud Braud judgment forth herein Keen 2004 as s is dismissed motion s s to motion to untimely is appeal due of the to the We note that the trial judge recused himself from this matter on December 7 2004 Therefore there is no necessity to act on the motions to recuse since those are moot 8 untimeliness of the denied Keen to Hourly 1 Motion Fees Supplement matter to s 2 We further vacate the appeal to Annul and 3 Motion for Reasons and New Trial court to rule on 16 8 said motions 04 are assessed it to recuse is Motion to We remand this the trial Lastly because judge has already voluntarily recused himself from this regarding the denial of the motions as Judgment of August 18 2003 Pertaining New Trial Motions Filed 8 6 04 and the trial judgment insofar moot equally between the appellant Linda R matter any issue Costs of this Keen and the appeal appellee Brenda Braud MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD FILED BY KEEN IS GRANTED MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD FILED BY MOTION TO DISMISS SUSPENSIVE BRAUD IS GRANTED APPEAL IS DENIED AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL APPEAL DENIED OF AUGUST 18 2003 JUDGMENT IS DISMISSED IN PART JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 9 AND
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
