Kimberly Cornett VS Cynthia Cornett
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013 CA 0296 KIMBERLY CORNETT VERSUS CYNTHIA CORNETT udgment Rendered NOV O 1 2013 On Appeal from the Twenty ludicial District Court First In and for the Parish of Livingston State of Louisiana No 137683 Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks Judge Presiding Eddie J Lambert Gonzales Louisiana Matthew H Todd Sherman Mack Q Albany Louisiana BEFORE Counsel for Defendant Appellant Cynthia Cornett Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Kimberly Cornett PETTIGREW MCDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McCLENDON J Cynthia Cornett appeals a judgment that granted a permanent injunction which restricted her from abusing harassing stalking or threatening her law in daughter and grandchildren precluded her from traversing within one hundred yards of daughter and grandchildren and precluded her from law in traversing within one hundred yards of her daughter sresidence or place law in of employment For the following reasons we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 22 2012 Kimberly Cornett filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against her mother Cynthia law in Cornett Therein Kimberly alleged that she has serious criminal charges pending against her husband who is Cynthia son s Kimberly asserted that Cynthia has continually harassed and threatened petitioner about proceeding with the charges Kimberly also alleged that on June 20 2012 while she and her two minor daughters were at a hair salon in Maurepas Louisiana Cynthia called the salon Kimberly alleged that it was her belief that Cynthia was attempting to determine s Kimberly location Thereafter Kimberly and her children left the hair salon and went to Ascension Optical in Gonzales After they arrived at Ascension Optical Cynthia showed up at Ascension Optical and approached the older of the two minor children and according to Kimberly grabbed her daughter arm s forcefully and yelled profusely at Kimberly Based on the foregoing allegations the trial court granted a temporary restraining Kimberly order prohibiting among other things Cynthia from or going within one contacting hundred yards of Kimberly residence or s employment The trial court also set the matter for hearing for Cynthia to show I cause why the restraining order should not issue in the form and substance of a permanent injunction The petition mistakenly alleges that the incident occurred in the parking lot but all parties agree that the incident occurred in Ascension Optical 2 Kimberly asserts that after filing her petition she learned from a mutual friend Jeanne Delhommer that Cynthia who was an authorized user able to access Kimberly phone account reviewed the numbers of the incoming and s outgoing phone calls to and from Kimberly phone According to Jeanne who s testified at the hearing Cynthia calted her to confirm that she had spoken to Kimberly and asked what she and had Kimberly talked about Jeanne acknowledged that after Cynthia inquiry she talked to Kimberly on the phone s later that day After her second conversation with Kimberly Jeanne indicated that she received another phone call from Cynthia sarcastically thanking her for telling Kimberly that Cynthia was reviewing Kimberly calls s At trial Cynthia admitted that she reviewed the phone numbers on s Kimberly phone but contended that she did so to ensure that her son was not trying to contact Kimberly or the children in violation of a court order Cynthia also admitted that she called the salon to ask a question about hair coloring but testified that she was unaware that Kimberly and the minor children were there She also testified that she broke her glasses that same day so she went to Ascension Optical to get them fixed Cynthia denied that she knew Kimberly and her grandchildren were at Ascension Optical when she stopped there According to Cynthia when she saw her grandchildren at Ascension Optical she just touched her older granddaughter shoulder and said Hey s Sissy because that what I always called her s She indicated that she was overwhelmed from not seeing her grandchildren for six months At that point Cynthia asserts that Kimberly told her that she was an unfit and the poorest excuse for a grandmother she had ever seen Cynthia testified that she left Ascension Optical because of the confrontation Bridget LeBlanc an employee of Ascension Optical testified that Cynthia did not approach her granddaughter in a hostile manner and merely put her hand on her s granddaughter shoulder She denied that the confrontation between Kimberly and Cynthia involved screaming where the entire place could hear but admitted it was enough to get somebody sattention 3 In contrast Kimberly testified that Cynthia grabbed her older daughter s arm forcefully at which point Kimberly told Cynthia they do not want to talk to you You have betrayed them You did not believe your grandchild Kimberly testified that Cynthia started screaming shut up shut up shut up and backing up And I said you are pitiful excuse for a grandmother And she started screaming shut up shut up shut up And then she looked at me and threatened me and said restraining order babe and walked out Kimberly indicated that her older daughter is not a crier and she was so afraid When we got in the car she cried for an hour According to the older daughter when Cynthia arrived at Ascension Optical she grabbed my arm and it really it scared me She indicated that her grandmother was using force and pulling her arm She also testified that she had seen the things that her grandmother had done to the family She testified that neither she nor her family wanted to talk to or see her grandmother She acknowledged that her mother addressed her grandmother first indicating that her mother told her grandmother that she had betrayed us and she was a pitiful excuse for a grandmother In response her grandmother said shut up shut up and then she said restraining order babe threatening my mom Following the hearing the trial court granted Kimberly request for a s permanent injunction A written judgment was subsequently entered restraining and prohibiting Cynthia from abusing harassing threatening Kimberly and the two minor children stalking following from or contacting personally electronically by phone in writing or through a third party Kimberly and the two minor children and from traversing within 100 yards of Kimberly and the minor children Kimberly sresidence and Kimberly sworkplace Cynthia has appealed assigning the following as error 1 The trial court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction when the evidence failed to show irreparable injury loss or damage may result to applicant 2 The trial court erred in granting the permanent injunction as to the minor children when they were not parties to the action 4 3 The trial court erred in granting the permanent injunction prohibiting Cynthia Cornett from traversing within a distance of one hundred yards of Kimberly Cornett and the minor children or Kimberly residence or place of employment because it is s unduly restrictive DISCUSSION An applicant must show that irreparable injury loss or damage may otherwise result to the applicant before an injunction may be issued LSA P C art 3601 Courts are generally reluctant to issue an injunction to restrain t rts such as defamation or harassment Lassalle v Daniels 96 La 1 0176 App Cir 5 673 So 704 709 writ denied 96 La 9 679 96 10 2d 1463 96 20 2d So 435 cert denied 519 U 1117 117 S 963 136 L 848 1997 S Ct 2d Ed An injunction is a harsh drastic and extraordinary remedy and is only issued where the petitioner is threatened with irreparable loss or injury without adequate remedy at law Irreparable injury is that which cannot be adequately compensated in damages or for which damages can not be compensable in money Id The issuance of a permanent injunction takes place only after a trial on the merits in which the burden of proof must be founded on a preponderance of the evidence rather than a prima facie showing Hughes v Muckelroy 97 0618 La 1 Cir 9 700 So 995 998 The question of whether an App 97 23 2d injunction should be granted or denied is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court decision will be disturbed on review only in s cases where a clear abuse of its discretion has been shown Lassalle v Daniels 673 So at 708 2d In her first assignment of error Cynthia asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the permanent injunction injunction was based solely on one Cynthia maintains that the incident at Ascension Optical Cynthia contends that there was no evidence or testimony presented that Cynthia presented any type of threat to Kimberly or the minor children that would have caused irreparable injury loss or damage 5 Cynthia also maintains that the meeting at Ascension Optical occurred by chance and she had little or no contact with Kimberly or her granddaughters for six months preceding this incident Although Cynthia maintains that the incident at Ascension Optical was the sole basis for the injunctive relief the record also reflects that Cynthia admitted that she reviewed the incoming and outgoing calls to and from Kimberly telephone and that she even called one of those s individuals to inquire about a conversation Additionally while Cynthia posits that her meeting with Kimberly and her children at Ascension Optical was happenstance the trial court could have believed otherwise given Cynthia s acknowledgment that she reviewed Kimberly calls and the events that s happened earlier that day While there were different versions regarding the nature of the contact between Cynthia and her granddaughter at Ascension Optical the trial court chose to believe the s granddaughter testimony Where there are two permissible views of the evidence the fact finder schoice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong Stobart v State through Dept of Transp and Development 617 So 880 882 La 1993 C this 2d nsidering testimony in light of the entirety of the record we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunctive relief sought In her second assignment of error Cynthia asserts that the trial court erred in granting the permanent injunction as to the minor children when they were not specifically named as parties in the action However in her petition Kimberly specifically alleged that she and her minor children are in imminent danger Clearly Kimberly was making claims to keep Cynthia away from her and the minor children Moreover the testimony and evidence introduced at the hearing concerned Cynthia contact with both Kimberly and the minor children s In light of the foregoing and given that Kimberly has a duty to protect her minor children as recognized by LSA art 235 we find no error in the trial court C z Louisiana Civil Code article 235 provides 6 issuing the restraining order in Kimberly sfavor to preclude contact with Kimberly and the minor children This assignment of error is without merit In her final assignment of error Cynthia asserts that the injunction is too broad and should be modified so as not to infringe upon her access to public places We note that in her prayer for relief Kimberly specifically prayed for an order prohibiting defendant from going within one hundred yards of her residence and place of employment Cynthia produced no evidence at the hearing regarding why entering the order as prayed for would be unduly restrictive Although the record reFlects that Kimberly is a teacher in Livingston Parish it does not specifically indicate at which particular school nor does the record establish that Cynthia has any reason to visit said school Accordingly based on the record before us we find no merit in assignment of error number three CONCWSION For the foregoing reasons the December 18 2012 judgment is affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant Cynthia Cornett AFFIRMED Fathers and mothers owe protection to their children and of course they may as long as their children are under their authority appear for them in court in every kind of civil suit in which they may be interested and they may likewise accept any donation made to them 3 The issue raising the restrictive nature of the restraining order was not specifically raised at the trial court level While Cynthia alleges that the restriction prohibits her from going to public places where her other grandchildren may be present the record is devoid of any specific evidence in this regard 7
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.
