Milton P. Tyler VS Joy C. Hancock
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 2081 MILTON P TYLER VERSUS JOY C HANCOCK l Judgment Rendered OCT 2 2 2010 APPEALED FROM THE TWENTYFIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF LIVINGSTON STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 122209 DIVISION H THE HONORABLE ZORRAINE M WAGUESPACK JUDGE Ernest M Forbes Denham Springs Louisiana Attorney for PlaintiffAppellant Milton P Tyler A Todd Caruso Attorney for Defendant Appellee Denham Springs Louisiana Joy C Hancock BEFORE WHIPPLE McDONALD AND McCLENDON JJ McDONALD J This is a suit on a promissory note filed by Milton P Tyler against his former wife Joy C Hancock Mr Tyler and Ms Hancock were divorced in 1984 Ms Hancock answered the suit asserting that she had borrowed only 1 00 500 from Mr Tyler which had been paid in full The parties signed a handwritten promissory note on November 25 2005 which provided in part that Ms Hancock would pay Mr Tyler 15 at an 00 000 interest rate of 12 percent compounded quarterly from the date of the note if Ms Hancock did not pay the full amount to Mr Tyler by November 25 2008 After trial on the merits the trial court ruled in favor of Mr Tyler finding that Ms Hancock owed him 15 on the promissory note plus 25 attorney 00 000 fees 3and interest Mr Tyler is appealing that judgment asserting that 00 750 the judgment erroneously assessed interest as due from the date of trial rather than the date the note was executed THE ANSWER TO THE APPEAL AND EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION Ms Hancock filed an untimely answer to the appeal along with an exception of prescription Thereafter this court issued a rule to show cause ordering that the parties show by briefs whether the untimely answer should be dismissed This court later referred the rule to show cause to this panel Ms Hancock thereafter filed a motion to dismiss both her answer to the appeal and her exception of prescription Ms Hancock motion to dismiss both the answer to the s appeal and the exception of prescription is hereby granted Thus all that is left for our consideration is the appeal filed by Mr Tyler 1 The trial court reasons for judgment reflect that the interest would run from the date of s default November 25 2008 rather than the date of trial However a trial court written reasons s for judgment form no part of the judgment itself Where there is a conflict between the judgment and the written reasons the judgment controls Delahoussaye v Board of Supervisors of Colleges 20040515 La App 1 Cir 3 906 So 646 654 05 24 2d 2 THE APPEAL In his appeal Mr Tyler asserts that the trial court erred in its award of interest on the note This argument has merit The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mr Tyler and against Ms Hancock awarding Mr Tyler the principal amount due on the note 15 plus 25 of that amount 3 as 00 000 00 750 attorney fees plus interest on both from date of trial However the note provides that an interest rate of twelve per cent 12 APR compounded quarterly from the date of November 25 2005 became effective if Ms Hancock did not pay the full amount due on the note by November 25 2008 Thus the trial court erred in assessing interest from the date of trial rather than from November 25 2005 Thus the trial court judgment is amended to provide that the 12 APR interest on the note compounded quarterly is due from the date of November 25 2005 until paid in full Otherwise the trial court judgment is affirmed We decline Mr Tyler request for attorney fees for the appeal Ms Hancock is cast with the s costs of the appeal AMENDED AND AS AMENDED AFFIRMED 3
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.
