Jeffrey Mickal Berthelot VS Heather Travis Berthelot
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT JEFFREY MICKAL BERTHELOT NO. 2016 CW 1247 VERSUS HEATHER TRAVIS BERTHELOT In Re: Heather Travis 21st writs, Tangipahoa, BEFORE: WELCH, STAY specific the DENIED. prohibition and settlement La. Ms. to purchase of a a new of So. 2d court' s community truck. mandates the property and from partition the La. of 41 ( see La. also 19, vehicle as Cir. property regimes Daigre V. after Daigre, Accordingly, 2016 order allowing we requiring Mr. trade -in a 4th longstanding a community 1956). September matrimonial App. has from matrimonial Id.; JJ. community Berthelot to sign necessary documents transfer Parish 9: 2801 Louisiana arising 89 R. S. of arising 1144. community. district La. 2014 - 1154 ( piecemeal 481 - 81, supervisory Court, HOLDRIDGE AND CHUTZ, partition claims claims the of 472, the vacate of the 1131, against termination 230 So. 3d THERIOT, Durden, v. 2016 2010- 0002845. the of for applying District GRANTED. for Durden 165 No. WRIT settlement 4/ 29/ 15), Berthelot, Judicial HIGGINBOTHAM, procedure regime. SEPTEMBER 27, Berthelot toward the WRC TMH Welch, Berthelot Code art. actions. J., concurs failed to 2369. 7( 1) Mr. show in Berthelot is Also, it the order additionally grounds to states required obtain court that La. under authority Mr. Civ. for his failed to show that trading in the truck that such necessary, interest of Ms. Berthelot, arbitrary. and is action and is that important detrimental not her refusal here that to to concur Mr. the was Berthelot falsely claimed the truck had been severely damaged and that he needed access to insurance vehicle. should A not party be that granted proceeds makes authority of community property. Holdridge, Theriot, COURT J., OF APPEAL, J., false to in order to allegations effect a obtain in piecemeal a dissents in part and would deny the writ. CIRCUIT PUTY CLERK OF COURT FOR THE COURT new pleading partition concurs. FIRST a
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.
