NEW ORLEANS REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ELMER LUCAS, OR HIS SUCCESSION AND HEIRS, IF DECEASED
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION NEW ORLEANS * NO. 2003-CA-1406 REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY * COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS * FOURTH CIRCUIT ELMER LUCAS, OR HIS SUCCESSION AND HEIRS, IF DECEASED * STATE OF LOUISIANA * * ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2001-19460, DIVISION “J-13” Honorable Nadine M. Ramsey, Judge ****** Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr. ****** (Court composed of Judge Dennis R. Bagneris Sr., Judge Terri F. Love, and Judge David S. Gorbaty) Christopher Gobert CADE, COLLINS & GOBERT 2139 Elysian Fields Avenue New Orleans, LA 70117 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Shaun B. Rafferty Leslie Guthrie Legrand SHAUN B. RAFFERTY LAW OFFICE LLC 203 Carondelet Street Suite 250 New Orleans, LA 70130 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE AFFIRMED The plaintiff, New Orleans Redevelopment Authority (NORA), instituted proceedings to expropriate property located at 5019-21 La Salle Street originally owned by Elmer Lucas on the basis that the property had been declared blighted. The Trial Court granted judgment in favor of NORA on March 15, 2002. Notice of the signing of the judgment was mailed on April 8, 2002. Wesley Alden, who purchased the property at a tax sale, appealed the judgment. The Succession of Elmer Lucas, while not appealing the judgment, filed a brief in the matter arguing that the Trial Court’s judgment was erroneous. This Court affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment in an unpublished opinion on February 12, 2003. NORA v. Elmer Lucas, 2002-1546 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/12/2003). While the appeal was pending, defendants, the Succession of Elmer Lucas, filed a motion for new trial on November 15, 2002. The Trial Court denied the motion for new trial on March 31, 2003. The defendant now appeals the denial of a motion for new trial. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1974 provides that a motion for new trial shall be filed “seven days, exclusive of legal holidays. The delay for applying for a new trial commences to run on the day after the clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, the notice of judgment as required by Article 1913.” In the present case, the defendant filed the motion for new trial seven months after the notice of the signing of the judgment. As the motion for new trial was untimely, the Trial Court correctly denied the motion. AFFIRMED.
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.
