Succession of Ira Clifton Sharp (2009CA1500 Consolidated With 2009CA1502 2009CA1501)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2009 CA 1500 SUCCESSION OF IRA CLIFTON SHARP CONSOLIDATED WITH NUMBER 2009 CA 1501 PRISCILLA S SHARP VERSUS IRA C SHARP CONSOLIDATED WITH NUMBER 2009 CA 1502 PRISCILLA SHARP ON BEHALF OF RICHARD SHARP VERSUS ALMA KENNEDY Judgment Rendered June 11 2010 Appealed from the Twenty second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Suit Numbers 2004 30353 92 11868 and 2004 12660 Honorable Donald M Fendlason Presiding William M Magee Zara Zeringue Covington LA Counsel for DefendantsAppellants Alma Kennedy and Ronnie Toney Carol T Richards Alan B Tusa Counsel for Plaintiff2nd Appellant Priscilla S Sharp Covington LA BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J GUIDRY J In these consolidated proceedings Alma Kennedy appeals from the November 18 2008 trial court judgment which appointed Priscilla Sharp administrator of the succession of Ira Clifton Sharp determined privileged and non privileged creditors of the succession and ordered Priscilla Sharp to calculate the value of the marital portion and the total interest and costs due to her for past due spousal support Priscilla Sharp answered the appeal asking that the net quantum of the estate in the judgment be corrected to read 73 and requesting attorney 60 616 s fees costs and sanctions On November 12 2009 this court issued a rule to show cause asserting that the November 18 2008 judgment appeared to be a partial final judgment without the required designation of finality By order dated February 17 2010 this court dismissed the appeal and the answer to the appeal in 2009 CA 1500 Succession of Ira Clifton Sharp and 2009 CA 1502 Priscilla Sharp on behalfofRichard Sharp v Kennedy because the November 18 2008 judgment as to these two actions is a partial final judgment that does not contain the proper designation of finality However we maintained the appeal in 2009 CA 1501 Priscilla Sharp v Ira Clifton Sharp because the November 18 2008 judgment was final with respect to that suit in that it determined the last remaining issue costs Accordingly only the trial s court judgment as it relates to costs is before this court for review We note that the parties also filed another consolidated appeal and answer with regard to a May 28 2008 judgment which awarded Priscilla Sharp attorney fees for work performed in the s divorce proceeding and in connection with the petition to annul judgment on the grounds of fraud and ill practices removed Alma Kennedy as executrix found Alma Kennedy in contempt of court awarded Priscilla Sharp her martial portion of the decedent sestate and other matters This court issued a rule to show cause and by order dated February 17 2010 dismissed all three consolidated appeals Particularly with regard to the appeal in the divorce proceeding this court noted that the May 28 2008 judgment addressing the attorney fees awarded for work performed s in the divorce proceeding was a final judgment that was not timely appealed Additionally this court noted that under Hoyt v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 623 So 2d 651 663 64 La App 1 Cir writ denied 629 So 2d 1179 La 1993 when a motion and judgment for costs is rendered after the final judgment on the merits the costs judgment is a separate final appealable judgment 3 Unfortunately from our review of Ms Kennedy sbrief she does not raise as error or otherwise brief any argument regarding the trial court assessment of costs s in the divorce proceeding Therefore in accordance with Uniform Court of Appeal Rule 212 and La C art 2162 we consider Ms Kennedy appeal of the 4 P s November 18 2008 judgment to have been abandoned and dismiss the appeal Further Ms Sharp has requested attorney fees and costs for work s performed on appeal in her answer asserting that the appeal filed by Ms Kennedy is frivolous However as stated previously Ms Kennedy filed an appeal regarding three consolidated matters which all came up for review and were presented in the same brief Though ultimately we dismissed most of the appeal on jurisdictional grounds and maintained it only with regard to the judgment on costs we do not find that Ms Kennedy was insincere in her arguments on appeal or that the appeal was urged for an improper motive See Taylor v Hanson North America 082282 p 10 La App 1st Cir 8 21 So 3d 963 970 09 4 Therefore we decline to award s attorney fees for work performed on appeal Finally as to Ms Sharp request that this court sanction Ms Kennedy for s discourteous remarks made in her appellate brief we find that because we are dismissing Ms Kennedy appeal sanctioning her by striking the offending portions s of her brief is not necessary Therefore based on the foregoing we dismiss the appeal and the answer to the appeal in accordance with Uniform Court ofAppeal Rule 2 16 All costs 2 2A of this appeal are assessed to Alma Kennedy APPEAL DISMISSED rd
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.
