MARGARET K. SLIMP Vs. MICHAEL J. SARTISKY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MARGARET K. SLIMP * VERSUS NO. 2011-CA-1677 * COURT OF APPEAL MICHAEL J. SARTISKY * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* CONSOLIDATED WITH: CONSOLIDATED WITH: MICHAEL J. SARTISKY NO. 2011-CA-1820 VERSUS MARGARET K. SLIMP APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2011-1167, DIVISION “M” Honorable Paulette R. Irons, Judge ****** Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr. ****** ON APPLICATIONS FOR REHEARING (Court composed of Judge Dennis R. Bagneris, Sr., Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr., Judge Edwin A. Lombard) Roy C. Cheatwood Adam B. Zuckerman Tyler L. Weidlich BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 201 St. Charles Avenue Suite 3600 New Orleans, LA 70170 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Lanny R. Zatzkis Yvette A. D’Aunoy Karen D. McCarthy ZATZKIS McCARTHY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. 650 Poydras Street Suite 2750 New Orleans, LA 70130-6101 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT REHEARING GRANTED ON APPLICATION OF MARGARET K. SLIMP; REHEARING DENIED ON APPLICATION OF MICHAEL J. SARTISKY; OPINION AMENDED; RENDERED. Marjorie Slimp (“Slimp”), the defendant/appellant, and Michael J. Sartisky (“Sartisky”), the plaintiff/appellee, each filed a timely applications for rehearing after we issued our opinion in this matter on 17 September 2012. Slimp’s application contends that this court committed a mathematical and/or typographical error when performing the calculations to determine the funds due to each party.1 Sartisky asserts other matters already addressed in our original opinion. We acknowledge that we committed a mathematical error and amend the paragraph on page 34 and the decree on page 39 of the original opinion to read as follows: We disagree with the accounting methodology presented by both experts. First of all, we now have the figure of net proceeds from the sale of the Harmony Street house: $800,667.28. From that sum, we first deduct the initial investment made by the parties in the house: for Sartisky, $375,243.00 and for Slimp, 1 Slimp suggests that we add expenses to the initial investments before arriving at the balance to be divided between the parties; doing so results in approximately $23,000.00 more for Slimp. We find that this is inaccurate and have added the expenses after arriving at the balance that the parties will share. 1 $197,372.90; that leaves a balance of $228,061.38, which we divide between the parties, each receiving $114,030.69. Giving each party credit for their reimbursable expenses, results in the total sum of $533,988.85 for Sartisky and $266,688.43 for Slimp. * * * The rehearing application of Sartisky is denied. Based on the foregoing, we reverse the trial court and render judgment as follows: out of the net proceeds from the sale of the Harmony Street house of $800,677.28, Michael J. Sartisky is awarded the sum of $533,988.85 and Margaret K. Slimp is awarded the sum of $266,688.43. We further affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing the new lawsuit by Slimp against Sartisky with prejudice on the basis of res judicata. Each party is to pay his/her own costs. REHEARING GRANTED ON APPLICATION OF MARGARET K. SLIMP; REHEARING DENIED ON APPLICATION OF MICHAEL J. SARTISKY; OPINION AMENDED; RENDERED. 2
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.
