STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES FOR M.H. VERSUS S.F.H. STEPHEN F. HURSTELL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL COURT OF APTEALa VERSUS vu a emeur STATE OF LOUISIANA STEPHEN F. HURSTELL "" NO. 01-CA-1383 APPEAL FROM JUVENILE COURT OF THE PARISH OF JEFFERSON STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NO. 95-NS-200, SECTION "B" HONORABLE ANDREA PRICE JANZEN, JUDGE MAY 29, 2002 MARION F. EDWARDS JUDGE Panel composed of Judges Sol Gothard, Marion F. Edwards and Clarence E. McManus PAUL D. CONNICK, JR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY 24th Judicial District TIMOTHY P. O'ROURKE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gretna Courthouse Annex Building, 5th Floor Gretna, Louisiana 70053 PIERRE V. MILLER, II ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 400 Poydras Street, Suite 1680 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 APPEAL DISMISSED Appellant Stephen Hurstell appeals a judgment of the Juvenile Court denying his Rule to Modify Support. For the reasons herein, we dismiss the appeal. Mr. Hurstell and his former wife, Karen Kroll, are the divorced parents of the minor child Malcolm. The parties have been in continuous litigation over support and visitation matters since 1992 when the Petition for Divorce was initiated. In June of 1995, the 24th Judicial District Court ordered Mr. Hurstell to pay child support in the amount of $1,103.00 per month. Numerous Rules for Contempt for failure to pay support, and motions to re-set, amend, and/or clarify custody and visitation were filed into the record. In September, 1999, the State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services, filed an Ex Parte Motion And Order To Change Payee And Transfer Case. The motion urged that the Department of Social Services (DSS) was furnishing enforcement services to Ms. 2 Kroll and that pursuant to LSA R.S. 46:236.2 A(1), (2), and (3), the court should require that Mr. Hurstell make all subsequent child support payments payable to DSS and that the child support order should be transferred to the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Jefferson for subsequent enforcement and modification. The motion was granted in accordance with the statute. The appeal record was designated by Mr. Hurstell. The transcript of proceedings held on September 5, 2000, indicates that before the court on that date were a Rule for Contempt, a Rule to Impose Sentence, and two Motions to Modify Support-one from Ms. Kroll for an increase, and one from Mr. Hurstell for a decrease. Following a hearing, and for reasons stated in open court, both the rule to reduce and the rule to increase support were denied. Mr. Hurstell appeals the denial of his rule to reduce. The record reveals that the judgment was rendered and signed on September 5, 2000. On October 4, 2000, Mr. Hurstell filed a Petition For Appeal from that judgment. LSA Ch.C. Art. 332 governs appeals from the Juvenile Court and reads as follows: A. Except as otherwise provided within a particular Title of this Code, appeals shall be taken within fifteen days from the signing of a judgment or from the mailing of notice of the judgment when required. However, if a timely application for a new trial is made pursuant to Paragraph C, the delay for appeal commences to run from the date of the mailing of notice of denial of the new trial motion. B. Notice of judgment, including notice of orders or judgments taken under advisement, shall be as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, except no notice is required for counsel or parties not represented by counsel who are present when the judgment is rendered and signed. C. After judgment is signed, a party may make a written 3 request for a motion for new trial on any ground provided by law. The delay for applying for a new trial is three days, exclusive of holidays, and shall commence to run from the signing of the judgment or the mailing of notice of judgment, when required. A motion for new trial shall be decided expeditiously and within seven days from the date of submission for decision. The above article governs the present proceedings. The transcript indicates that the parties and their respective counsel were present in court when the judgment was rendered from the bench, so that notice of judgment was not required. There is no Motion For New Trial in the record. Thus, Mr. Hurstell had 15 days from September 5, 2000, the date that the judgment was written and signed, within which to perfect his appeal. The Petition For Appeal filed on October 4, 2000, was untimely. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. APPEAL DISMISSED 4 EDWARD A. DUFRESNE. JR. CHIEF JUDGE PETER J. FITZGERALD, JR. CLERK OF COURT SOL GOTHARD JAMES L. CANNELLA THOMAS F. DALEY MARION F. EDWARDS SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CLARENCE E. McMANUS WALTER J. ROTHSCHILD GENEVIEVE L. VERRETTE CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA GLYN RAE WAGUESPACK 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) JERROLD B. PETERSON FIRST DEPUTY CLERK DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF POST OFFICE BOX 489 JUDGES GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400 (504) 376-1498 FAX CERTIFICATE I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN MAILED OR DELIVERED THIS DAY MAY 29, 2002 TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD AND TO ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW: PET U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Mr. Joseph R. McMahon, Jr. Assistant District Attorney Juvenile Court (Endo" 1546 Gretna Blvd. Bestr. Harvey, Louisiana 70058 (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees Sent To or PO Box No . I GERA | JR. U'COT U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) I ce Mr. Pierre V. Miller Attorney at Law Return R (Endorsement 400 Poydras St., Suite 1680 Restricted a (Endorsemen1 New Orleans, LA Total Postage & Fees Sent To Street. Apt. No.; or PO Box No. City, State ZIP+4 70130
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.
