RONDA LANE BONNETTE Vs. MICHAEL PAUL BONNETTE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION RONDA LANE BONNETTE * VERSUS NO. 2014-CA-0550 * COURT OF APPEAL MICHAEL PAUL BONNETTE * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2011-04023, DIVISION “K” Honorable Bernadette D'Souza, Judge ****** Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano ****** (Court composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet) Nanine McCool Attorney at Law 1772 Orleans Street Mandeville, LA 70448 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT Pamela R. Gibbs Craig E. Gibbs 4650 General DeGaulle Drive, Suite 100 New Orleans, LA 70131 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS October 8, 2014 In this child custody case, Ronda Bonnette, appeals the trial court’s January 23, 2014 judgment, which granted joint custody of their minor child to Ronda Bonnette and Michael Bonnette, with Michael Bonnette designated as the primary domiciliary parent. The judgment also permitted Michael Bonnette to relocate with the child, effective immediately, to Kingwood, Texas. Procedures for weekend, summer and holiday custody were also included in the judgment, in addition to other provisions. The record shows that at the conclusion of trial of this matter, the trial court took the matter under advisement, and subsequently rendered its written judgment, which is the subject of the instant appeal. The judgment includes a statement that the judgment is “based on the pleadings, the law, and the evidence presented, including the testimony of the parties and witnesses.” There is no indication in the judgment as to what factors under La. C.C. article 134 (best interest factors) and/or La. R.S. 9:355.14 (relocation factors) the trial court considered in reaching its decision. Without this information, we cannot properly perform our appellate 1 review of the judgment. See Maxwell v. Stanley, 2010-1049 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/16/11), 57 So.3d 1193. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to amend its judgment to identify the La. C.C. article 134 and/or La. R.S. 9:355.14 factors considered in reaching its January 23, 2014 decision. The trial court’s January 23, 2014 judgment is to remain in effect pending the rendition of the amended judgment and any subsequent appeal thereof. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS 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.
