Succession of Harry Edwin Nobles
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2008 CA 2133 SUCCESSION OF HARRY EDWIN NOBLES DATE OF JUDGMENT MAY 1 3 2009 ON APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT w NUMBER 15 890 DIV G PARISH OF ST MARY STATE OF LOUISIANA THE HONORABLE CHARLES PORTER JUDGE Walter Antin J r Appellant Hammond Louisiana Pro Se Nathan J Hochman Counsel for Assistant United States of America Attorney General Appellee and Jonathan S Cohen Joan I Oppenheimer Laura M Conner United States Washington Department of Justice D C BEFORE Disposition KUHN GUIDRY AND GAIDRY JJ SHOW CAUSE ORDER RECALLED JUDGMENT V ACA TED Kuhn J finding him of guilty noticed as a appeals was not 12 September a We vacate the contempt demonstrates that Antin or Jr Walter Antin Appellant party in the contempt proceedings as judgment because the record judgment individually charged served 2007 or otherwise named required by La C C P art 225 A PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND I Before his death in 1987 a number of substantial through against him for unpaid federal a to represent him the LHWCA claim in services rendered In 1987 to him Nobles Lorenz also Lorenz filed petition a in December 1985 represented Lorenz to a Antin Nobles in connection Act resolved Nobles executed were was distributed probate LHWCA claim partial assignment secure Parish of St settled for of payment for legal 65 913 95 Walter Antin Jr of Nobles Mary of Nobles unpublished opinion Corporation Nobles I for Judicial District Court See Succession was LHWCA claim proceeds tax liens related to these Lorenz A Professional Law favor of Antin died before the I federal Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Before the LHWCA claim made assessments the United States In relation thereto Antin had accumulated Nobles the United States of America In 1985 taxes and recorded Mary Parish hired the law firm of Antin with debts unpaid the Internal Revenue Service assessments in St Lorenz Harry Edwin Nobles statutory a but Nobles partner of Antin testament in the Sixteenth Thereafter Antin as testamentary 96 0468 p 3 La App 1 st Cir 6 20 97 709 So 2d 1088 writ denied 97 2322 La 11126 97 703 So 2d 649 2 table commenced executor Parish of Court court s proceeding in the Twenty First Judicial District the settlement Tangipahoa by placing The registry federal tax claim a concursus competing claims settlement 10 and claims 480 202 totaling to the the District Court was proceeds the trial In 1995 were judgment declaring that tax liens were transferred in granted court federal tax matter Lorenz in Antin to be paid the Twenty First Judicial was removed s 81 39 928 account to Antin and devolutively appealed Lorenz but for Antin the funds was paid to priority to the United States that decision Antin for the Sixteenth Lorenz Lorenz in this matter same out into placed almost the an immediately portion was paid of amount attorney A to trust portion of Antin as a Lorenz had discontinued Although Antin court s Thereafter this summary practice physical law as a Lorenz in an unpublished opinion in Antin Lorenz discontinued proprietorship address where Antin court judgment granted The record establishes that when Antin continued to were in in 1992 when Rainer Lorenz left the firm Antin continued to represent reversed the trial 2 paid were registry court Antin Law Firm2 and another shareholder of Antin operations the These funds Lorenz and executor Lorenz for services rendered in the preference released the funds in as proceeding motion for summary During the pendency of the appeal the Clerk of Court District to matters Lorenz part Antin in a the Sixteenth Judicial District Court to the claims of Antin The United States Judicial relating transferred and consolidated with the succession filed in the Sixteenth Judicial District Court the settlement filed proceeding concursus into the trial proceeds included by Antin attorneys fees for representing Nobles in various legal Thereafter proceeds operations Lorenz in 1992 named Antin Law Firm which previously 3 had its office was s favor Mr Antin hOllsed at the finding that the firm 96 0468 Nobles claim did s 2000 the trial court prime the 97 2322 signed a La I lien tax 1 st Cir 6 20 97 App writ denied unpublished opinion March 9 La 3 p not 709 See Succession So 2d 2d So judgment granting the court registry accumulated if the the amount had for to return Lorenz filed process and In a remained in the the funds it had exceptions 12 September 2007 Lorenz to return previously received not the firm of Antin Lorenz Lorenz interest to the proceedings s the United of States Lorenz in Antin In response insufficiency in contempt of service registry of the of guilty court in Jr does not deposit January 9 1997 to the January 30 2007 Walter Antin Jr has Walter Jr court as follows guilty of these succession and concursus Internal executory 81 928 39 registry January 3 2007 together with legal on of the court on or before 3 suspensively appealed this judgment urging the the executory date was intended this date to be January 30 2008 judgment provides apparently of contempt of On Contempt of the evidence for willfully and 81 39 928 together with legal Parish jail The sentence will become if Walter Antin Judgment Walter Antin Jr is ordered to pay a fine of five 500 00 and serve three months in the St Mary hundred dollars the a in favor of the tax lien of the United States Revenue Service interest from signed court exceptions and further found attorney Walter Antin by a preponderance of unreasonably failing to return court registry hold Antin judgment the trial Court Although court to States plus the interest that would have urging the objections which denied Antin The court finds 3 it On prematurity Contempt Antin Jr to again in May 2006 moved 2000 and failing disbursed Lorenz failed to return the funds When Antin August amount 649 the United motion for entry of judgment in its favor which ordered Antin to table 1088 703 1126 97 of 4 January 30 2007 we trial court note the trial holding him in contempt because the erred in enter judgment against him because he a proceedings he with a motion or he was an not was order directed rule for to parties were he Lorenz 2008 this court issued further ordered to him rule a to as not was not tried for contempt for Antin at issue rulings The was the corporate firm rather than On October 29 stated contempt and he without was not named was charged with contempt held in improperly court s jurisdiction party in these a individually served contempt Antin urges failure show individually 4 show order which by briefs why cause with comply to cause appear to be NON APPEALABLE to to the appeal The rulings should be not dismissed II ANALYSIS A A judgment of court and fact that non a imposes similar specifically sanctions is a holds final judgment against a judgment no 1172 upon Accordingly the party we of find the instant his Because raised by we vacate the trial court s to the in litigation the contempt litigation v Fidelity While status in to a an which he is a non order of contempt Antin 5 we so cast party so in cast instance should not not judgment which finds Walter a a Nat l Bank Trust party litigant such to pay the litigation would have been review of the merits legal party in contempt of court and orders him 4 to Albritton appellate remedy and outcome party 1 st Cir 5 28 93 App may obtain relief upon such certain depend La a non appealable judgment notwithstanding appealable interlocutory judgment 619 So 2d 1170 has that Rule to Show Cause a Antin fine of 500 00 and pretermit other Jd party Jr a non serve assignments three of error months in the St our rule to show cause order and Louisiana La classified in courts C C P two contempt is a are than direct charged him to show against and shall 224 or R S with cause The state the committing La 13 1 C C P 06 art of of court are Contempts La C C P art 221 A direct ilful disobedience of any lawful w constitutes constructive why facts assigned for 225 are 918 So 2d 453 constructive contempt of a therefor by art mandatory Succession 6 v judge of a The rule Id to A certified shall be served upon the person cause Lang court may of contempt 225 alleged to constitute the contempt same manner as a the adjudged guilty La C C P added the trial of the rule 455 after the trial only he should not be Emphasis contempt in the before the time 13 4611 omISSions and contempt of court is any contempt other copy of the motion and of the rule to show charged acts process of the court punished punished accordingly cause art with thereof and rule show La sanction to La C C P art 224 2 person guilty empowered mandate writ contempt of court be found Contempt Judgment A constructive La C C P one order A recall contempt committed in the immediate view and presence of the La C C P art 222 judgment we appeal direct and constructive categories Thus appealable judgment final maintain the 221 227 arts court a we a of the Validity contempt is Mary Parish jail subpoena at Id The Asten of Bell least forty eight requirements Inc 05 1119 06 1710 p 7 La set p App hours forth in 4 La 1 st Cir 964 So 2d 1067 6 8 07 In Seaward So 2d 38 for further to other to a trial In it so means holding insofar court s ruling contempt against tecum and as the non mailed request for Inc 192 App So 2d La remanded the duces Although as charges against him Antin counsel for Antin appeared tecum or production party had in Geo Je Also 40 1 st Cir as this 1988 required by participated expressly reserved all rights and challenges stage of the proceedings individually charged served not contempt proceedings no Antin is jurisdiction as to render or a non a 5 La C C P art 2 2594 states to party La C C the to s was not Civic Ass never a n a received the La C C P art 225A representative capacity proceedings procedures employed these or at he each proceedings and he noticed party in the as a The trial P art 225 A court was had contempt judgment against Antin in his individual capacity and accordingly the September La C C P art 2002 A been not court reversed in the trial court otherwise named required by matter for the motion for of documents before the trial court in the Lorenz and party party had been non contempt judgment because the person charged with contempt proper notice of the a non 822 party had received actual notice through Id at p 525 1 st Cir 6 21 02 App this court noted that because the device Reed of original subpoena jurisdiction accomplishing v La because the record did not show that the irrelevant that the was 01 0770 subpoena duces a served with either the contempt served respond proceedings properly City of Hammond v this court vacated failing 5 1072 73 Thus we 12 2007 hereby judgment vacate the Citation and service thereof is an absolute nullity judgment are not necessary in summary A copy of the contradictory motion rule to show cause or other pleading and of proceeding order of court assigning the date and hour of the trial thereot shall be served upon the any defendant 7 a CONCLUSION III For these Appeal reasons the trial costs in the amount of court s September 1 681 00 are 12 2007 assessed judgment against appellee is vacated the United States of America SHOW CAUSE ORDER RECALLED JUDGMENT VACATED 8
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.
