CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VERSUS DARRYL MICHAEL FONTANA A/K/A DARRYL M. FONTANA A/K/A DARRYL FONTANA, MARY URETA FONTANA A/K/A MARY U. FONTANA A/K/A MARY FONTANA, LY MAI NGUYEN A/K/A LY M. NGUYEN A/K/A LY NGUYEN AND TAM MINH NGUYEN A/K/A TAM M. NGUYEN A/K/A TAM NGUYEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VERSUS DARRYL MICHAEL FONTANA A/K/A DARRYL M. FONTANA A/K/A DARRYL FONTANA, MARY URETA FONTANA A/K/A MARY U. FONTANA A/K/A MARY FONTANA, LY MAI NGUYEN A/K/A LY M. NGUYEN A/K/ A LY NGUYEN AND TAM MINH NGUYEN A/ K/A TAM M. NGUYEN A/K/A TAM NGUYEN NO. 18-CA-410 FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF LOUISIANA ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 767-515, DIVISION "P" HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING July 31, 2018 MARION F. EDWARDS, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE JUDGE Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Stephen J. Windhorst, and Marion F. Edwards, Judge Pro Tempore MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED MFE FHW SJW EDWARDS, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE, J. Defendants/Appellees, Ly Mai Nguyen and Tam Minh Nguyen, have filed the instant motion to dismiss appeal on the basis that it was untimely filed by plaintiff/appellant. Our review of the record finds that the motion for appeal was indeed filed untimely. Thus, we grant the appellees’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal and accordingly dismiss this appeal. The ruling at issue involves the trial court’s judgment which granted appellees exception of prescription. Our review of the official record in this matter reveals that the judgment appealed from was rendered on May 22, 2017, and notice of the signing of the judgment was mailed on the next day, May 23, 2017. However, the appellant’s notice of intent to appeal the May 22, 2017 judgment was filed for the record on May 31, 2018, over one year after judgment had been rendered and notice sent to all parties. La. C.C.P. art. 2087 provides that the delay for filing a devolutive appeal is within sixty days of the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as provided by Article 1974 and Article 1811, if no application has been filed timely, or; the date of the mailing of notice of the court’s refusal to grant a timely application for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as provided under Article 1914. Neither time frame was met by appellants in their motion for a devolutive appeal. As this Court explained in Parish of Jefferson v. McGee, 11-76, p. 5, (La. App. 5 Cir. 05/24/11), 67 So.3d 640, 642: Absent a timely filed motion for appeal, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. The issue is not, as appellants claim in their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, a matter of prescription. This court's opinion in Harper v. Eschenazi, 673 04-863 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/04), 892 So.2d 671, is instructive herein: The appeal delays found in La. C.C.P. art. 2087 are not prescriptive periods that are subject to interruption: these time 18-CA-410 1 limits are jurisdictional. An appellant's failure to file a devolutive appeal timely is a jurisdictional defect in that neither the court of appeal nor any other court has the jurisdictional power and authority to reverse, revise, or modify a final judgment after the time for filing a devolutive appeal has elapsed. Accordingly, when an appellant fails to timely file a devolutive appeal from a final judgment, the judgment acquires the authority of the thing adjudged, and the court of appeal has no jurisdiction to alter that judgment. (citations omitted) In the instant case, upon finding that appellant’s devolutive appeal was untimely, we are without jurisdiction to alter the judgment challenged. For the above reasons, appellee’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is hereby granted. This appeal is hereby dismissed, costs to be borne by appellants. MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED 18-CA-410 2 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHERYL Q. LANDRIEU CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT MARY E. LEGNON FREDERICKA H. WICKER JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON ROBERT M. MURPHY STEPHEN J. WINDHORST HANS J. LILJEBERG CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK SUSAN BUCHHOLZ FIFTH CIRCUIT 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053) JUDGES POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 www.fifthcircuit.org FIRST DEPUTY CLERK MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF (504) 376-1400 (504) 376-1498 FAX NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY JULY 31, 2018 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW: 18-CA-410 E-NOTIFIED 24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HON. LEE V. FAULKNER, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE) STEPHEN D. MARX (APPELLEE) MAILED DARRYL M. FONTANA (APPELLEE) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1022 LOYOLA AVENUE NEW ORLEANS, LA 70113 NATASHA D. FOSSETT (APPELLANT) HERSCHEL C. ADCOCK, JR.(APPELLANT) COREY J. GIROIR (APPELLANT) RONNIE J. BERTHELOT (APPELLANT) ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 87379 BATON ROUGE, LA 70879

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.