Peggy Robinson and Metropolitan Mutual Mortgage, Inc. VS State of LouisianaThrough The Office of Financial Institutions

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0467 PEGGY M ROBINSON METROPOLITAN MUTUAL MORTGAGE INC VERSUS 1 I STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH THE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL h INSTITUTIONS Ii I fP Judgment Rendered On Appeal from November 2 2007 the Nineteenth Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket No 515 456 Honorable William A Morvant Johnnie A Jones Sr Baton Rouge Louisiana Peggy M H Robinson Baton Rouge Louisiana Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Peggy Robinson and Metropolitan Plaintiff Appellant In Proper Person Linda Ritzie Mobile AL Van A Heard Counsel for Defendant Susan State of Louisiana Hays Rouprich Paul M Melancon Jr Appellee through Office of Financial Institutions Baton Rouge Louisiana BEFORE GAIDRY McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON J Plaintiff dismissing appellant for failure Peggy The petition was appealed her request for to pay costs administrative agency decision Robinson M judgment a review of judicial We affirm filed in December of 2003 Two years later defendant State of Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions filed to dismiss for failure ten days After to pay costs citing LSA C C reasons P 2126E art The trial to pay costs a as hearing the trial the costs an of said affidavit the trial receipt Subsequently reconsideration Ms More than six months later judgment dismissing costs Ms Robinson a Ms Robinson dismissal based denial of pauper status on Although s appeal instead La App 1 Cir 669 2d So appellate See Starks 12 15 95 v 666 a Pauperis Affidavit court to s denied a Ms Upon proceed without request for 2006 the trial court formal court assignment to pay costs Ms However signed a to pay appellant she did of error on ISSUES brief entitled not the Robinson lists the brief said issue the conclusion that the assert Judge s In denial of saving procedure to challenge a denial of pauper supervisory jurisdiction Ms Robinson chose to s Universal Life Insurance 2d So hearing request for review for failure the failure the most efficient and time status is to invoke the the days after the trial in the section of her her rebuttal brief she does Ms Robinson 1 PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1 Two December 7 Notwithstanding the absence of issue of oral Robinson had attached another affidavit on appealed motion abandoned should she fail denied the request advance payment of costs to which as In Forma court the further stated that Ms Robinson court within the allotted time Robinson filed into the record a court in its authority granted request for judicial review would be dismissed to pay an 387 394 95 400 2 Company 95 1003 p 12 n 4 La 3 8 96 4 n writ denied 96 0113 the Status Pauper circumstances of appellant are appears to be unfair and unreasonable under the and states lack of s that the record contains ability to made without citation to without reference denial in this specific representation Unfortunately pay fee schematic the assertions pages in the record on appeal and specific facts that would support her conclusion that the to unfair case was See URCA Rule 2 assignments 4 12 not briefed may be deemed abandoned and argument without record citations may be chose review the dismissal based to initial and on appeal subsequent was in a to abuse of that discretion La See Starks 1 Cir App 3 8 96 on the failure court including the to pay costs forma pauperis affidavits filed before the judgment trial court is afforded wide discretion in grant the privilege finding despite the lack of specificity this rendered Generally to Nevertheless disregarded litigate an in forma pauperis appellate court will deciding whether In the absence of clear not disturb the trial cOUli Universal Life Insurance 15 12 Company 95 1003 p 95 v writ denied 96 0113 666 So 2d 387 394 s 11 La 669 So 2d 400 Initially we in Ms Robinson month later note that although some of the expenses and values listed first affidavit conflicted with the second s both showed moderate to significant equity property with a listing of immovable property in addition We also note that appeared to be some prayed for pauper C C P art 5183A to only proceed status a in immovable a family home in light of the low valuations and income the record revealed that Ms Robinson failed to file reported Additionally application to filed of the expenses and debts in the first affidavit inordinately high proper one in forma pauperis in the petition Tenney v nor Burlington 3 filed a Ms Robinson neither written motion Northern a Santa Fe See LSA Railway Co 2003 1260 4 6 pp La 1 21 04 affidavit itself could be characterized to the Robinson did court Ms confirm pauper to not 863 as a So 2d 526 written submit all of the See LSA C C P status art proceed without the advance payment of costs is extended to only due to unavoidable In this attorney to was poverty us committed clear ruling we error see no gave her that the trial in its refusal to error the appeal are reasons assessed not more our a The right but a privilege to pay court costs Robinson than thorough a a licensed fair period of time review of the record grant pauper Based status on or that dismissal of Ms Robinson s to pay costs s 2 the judgment of dismissal is affirmed to to ability abused its wide discretion court in the trial court request for judicial review for failure For these 5183A 2 found that Ms court truly indigent and cannot say we statutorily required proof indigent and unable arrange for payment of the costs From before parte motion addressed See LSA C C P art 5181 et seq the trial case not proven to be parties ex Even if the 529 plaintiff appellant Peggy The costs of M Robinson AFFIRMED 2 Appellant filed However the Also in peremptory exception raising exception license which to pay costs a are centers on we deny the objection of nonjoinder of the merits of the revocation of not at issue in this Thus the appeal exception light of our affirmance arguably inappropriate arguments and we a mortgage of ajudgment ofdismissal based decline to address comments made 4 a party broker on a s failure appellee s complaints by appellant in her brief of

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.