Teresa Hardin Hightower VS Louis James Hightower
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1352 TERESA HARDIN HIGHTOWER VERSUS LOUIS JAMES HIGHTOWER Judgment Rendered December 22 2010 FMWMWMW1W1q Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Case No 200612594 The Honorable Dawn Amacker Judge Presiding David R Patterson Covington Louisiana Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Teresa Hardin Hightower And Robin B Cheatham New Orleans Louisiana Craig P Hart Tammy L Karas Covington Louisiana Counsel for DefendantAppellee Louis James Hightower BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J GAIDRY J In this divorce proceeding the wife appeals a judgment classifying certain property addressing discovery disputes and addressing objections to the Special Master report Because we find that the interlocutory judgment s was improperly certified as final and appealable we dismiss the appeal FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Teresa Hardin Hightower and Louis Hightower were divorced after approximately thirtyfive years of marriage by judgment dated January 17 2007 When numerous disputes arose over partitioning the property of the former community the court appointed a Special Master pursuant to La S 4165 R 13 to assist the court in making determinations relative to the discovery that has been propounded and whether or not it has been adequately answered by both parties The Special Master will make determinations and recommendations to the Court as to the assets of the community and what they are and in fact what are the community assets and what are not community assets After the Special Master issued her report both parties filed objections to her findings A hearing was held on these objections as well as on a rule for contempt After a hearing the trial court rendered judgment declaring that Creek Services L is an asset of the former community C rejecting the Special Master findings concerning the separate ownership of s Creek Services L The court also rejected the Special Master findings C s relative to discovery involving Creek Services L The court adopted C the Special Master findings regarding other community assets and other s discovery matters At Teresa request the court designated its judgment as a partial final s judgment under La C art 1915 In certifying the judgment as a P 1 B final appealable judgment the court stated Pa his T Court hereby finds that the major issue of contention between the parties in this proceeding is the classification of Creek Services L as either community property or the C separate property of Teresa Hardin Hightower and having a final disposition of that issue will likely shorten and streamline these proceedings and moot any further appellate review after all remaining issues between the parties are resolved Thus the Court believes that designating as a partial final judgment its ruling that Creek Services L is a community asset would C have the effect of conserving judicial resources and reducing expenses of litigation of the parties This appeal by Teresa followed in which the sole issue is the trial s court classification of Creek Services L as community property C DISCUSSION Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915 provides 1 B When a court renders a partial judgment or partial summary judgment or sustains an exception in part as to one or more but less than all of the claims demands issues or theories whether in an original demand reconventional demand cross claim third party claim or intervention the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the court after an express determination that there is no just reason for delay The purpose of article 1915 is to prevent multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation and to promote judicial efficiency and economy J R Messinger Inc v Rosenblum 20041664 p 13 La 3 894 So 05 2 2d 1122 1113 Article 1915 attempts to strike a balance between the undesirability of piecemeal appeals and the need for making review available at a time that best serves the needs of the parties In considering whether to certify a partial judgment as appealable the overriding inquiry for the trial court is whether there is any just reason for delay In making this decision the court may consider the following non exclusive list of factors 1 The relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims 3 2 The possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the trial court 3 The possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time and 4 Miscellaneous factors such as delay economic and solvency considerations shortening the time of trial frivolity of competing claims expense and the like Messinger 2004 1664 at pg 894 So at 112223 14 2d The proper standard of review on appeal for an order designating a judgment as final and immediately appealable when the order is accompanied by the trial court explicit reasons for the certification is s whether the trial court abused its discretion Messinger 20041664 at pg 13 894 So at 1122 2d In the instant case both parties presented multiple theories upon which the court could conclude Creek C Services L was either community or separate property The trial court ultimately determined that Creek Services L was community property based upon a May 24 2004 C document executed by the parties entitled Agreement Transmuting Character of Personal Property The court found that the agreement was intended to be a donation but was not in proper form so the property remained community in character In ruling the court stated s That my ruling on it And the form is the least of it but that s But even the easiest way for me to just dispose of the issue beyond that should the Court of Appeals sic tell me that the form is correct then there will be another day on this one on remand because there many other issues that I see involved in s that as well Thus it is clear from a reading of the trial court ruling that the s s court certification of its partial judgment as final and immediately 4 appealable is likely to lead to multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation The trial court clearly stated that if the court of appeal reversed its ruling on the community character of this asset on appeal it would rule on the issue again based upon other theories Having the trial court address all of these issues prior to appeal would prevent the likelihood of multiple appeals on the same issue and preserve judicial resources Therefore we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in improperly certifying this judgment as final and immediately appealable For this reason the appeal must be dismissed Additionally both Louis and Teresa filed motions to strike which were referred to the merits of the appeal Louis filed a motion to strike s Teresa original brief and reply brief on the grounds that they contained irrelevant information about the events leading up to the parties divorce While we agree that the inclusion of such details is unnecessary to the resolution of the issues raised in this appeal since we are dismissing the appeal the motion to strike the briefs is moot Teresa filed a motion to strike Louis opposition brief for failure to contain citations to the record in s support of his argument Again because we are dismissing the appeal this motion to strike is also moot DECREE The appeal is dismissed Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff Teresa Hardin Hightower APPEAL DISMISSED 5
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.
