Jarrell P. Melancon, Sr. VS Timothy O'Dowd
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2006 CA 0962 JARRELL P MELANCON SR VERSUS TIMOTHY O DOWD Judgment Rendered March 23 2007 Appealed from The City Court of Houma Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Docket Number 06 Honorable Jude Thaddeus 00589Q Fanguy Judge Presiding Jarrell P Melancon Sr Plaintiff Appellee Houma LA In Timothy O Dowd Houma LA BEFORE Person Defendant In CARTER C J Proper Proper Appellant Person WHIPPLE AND McDONALD JJ WHIPPLE J Timothy rendered on O Dowd March 31 the noted by the trial and the parties herein cOUli parties entered into Section 8 the its reasons pursuant the record and to 377 00 per month to the provisions of the lease agreement the time to be rent 100 00 rental payments in accordance with to reduce the rent to agreement tenns portion had court to alter balance owed after Section 8 at issue Section 8 paying was behalf of O Dowd only paid to pay an a leaving a total of 100 00 in rent O Dowd testified that aside iiom Melancon 23 00 per month in alleged oral agreement with Melancon the written lease agreement the lease was not to reduce the remaining rental balance in his was Thus the court stated rent to of the lease agreement O Dowd still owed acknowledged 460 00 with was l determined that because Melancon denied any such oral patiies had agreed of the rent 400 00 per month all of which Melancon denied writing which it find that the the monthly on through March of 2006 payment he attempted The trial conectly paid by O Dowd Melancon testified that O Dowd altered in by the pertinent Melancon in balance of 83 00 per month the As forth Section 8 the During from June of 2005 the trial cOUli set responsible for the remaining rental pOliion testimony adduced by with the Tenebonne Parish Consolidated Government s Housing Program tenant paid S1 thoroughly reviewed both judgment of eviction a City Court of Houma in favor of his 2006 from the landlord Janell P Melancon We have appeals from tenant The cOUli testimony only paying I required even if it to be were to 377 00 per month under 83 00 per month as his fmiher noted that O Dowd 100 00 for October of 2005 We note that contrary to his sworn testimony at trial in his brief to this court O Dowd contends that he attempted to pay his landlord 83 00 per month in rent 2 Thus the trial for least the months of November at March a concluded 0 Dowd had cOUli Accordingly the trial cOUli the appellate factual basis for the comi must findings Factual Rosell are Mart erroneous v Hill on light of the record reviewed Sistler reverse 1106 1112 La v Liberty of the evidence the fact finder Stobart erroneous State v s entitled a two to appellate cOUli must is not clearly 1127 wrong La If the trial cOUli in its pmi reasonable 1987 appeal absent manifest s error findings entirety the court of appeal Mutual Insurance Consequently when there 1990 and a 2d 1120 ESCO 549 So 2d 840 844 La 1989 reasonable in civil action is finding 505 So be reversed not a 2 the finding of the fact finder and findings should v may not in find from the record there is fUliher determine the record establishes the manifestly was rent of rent The standard of review for factual 1 January February December determined that Melancon judgment of eviction for non payment test paid his pOliion of the not are 558 So Company two permissible views manifestly cannot be choice between them 2d Department of Transportation and Development 617 So 2d 880 883 La 1993 Given the evidence and jurisprudential standard of review discretion and did that the trial cOUli judgment testimony before not err as a was matter clearly and find that the trial of law or wrong nor applying cOUli did the above not abuse its does the record demonstrate manifestly erroneous in rendering a of eviction Thus we affirm the March 31 accordance with Uniform Rules and 8 we us Costs of this appeal are 2006 judgment of the t11al court in COUlis of Appeal Rule 2 16 2A assessed AFFIRMED 3 to the appellant 5 6 7 Timothy O Dowd
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.
