ASHLEY CARRUTH FOWLER VERSUS RICHARD TISON AND MARIE TISON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 11-468 ASHLEY CARRUTH FOWLER VERSUS RICHARD TISON AND MARIE TISON ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 238,707 HONORABLE MARY LAUVE DOGGETT, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE ********** Court composed of John D. Saunders, J. David Painter, and Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED. Douglas Lee Bryan The Bryan Law Firm, LLC Post Office Box 707 Marksville, La 71351-0707 (318) 240-8282 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS: Richard Tison Marie Tison Susan Ford Fiser Attorney at Law Post Office Box 12424 Alexandria, LA 71315-2424 (318) 442-8899 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Ashley Carruth Fowler PAINTER, Judge. This court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the appellants, Richard and Marie Tison, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal should not be dismissed as premature. For the reasons which follow, we dismiss the appeal. After entry of a final judgment in this matter, the Tisons filed a motion for new trial. Attached to this motion was an order for the trial court to set a date for a rule for the appellee, Ashley Fowler, to show cause why the motion for new trial should not be granted. Handwritten over the typed order is the word, Denied, and this order was dated and signed by the trial court. As stated above, this court issued a rule for the appellants to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as premature. In Egle v. Egle, 05-531 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/8/06), 923 So.2d 780, this court held when a trial court denies an order to set a motion for new trial for contradictory hearing, the trial court is not issuing a ruling on the merits of the motion for new trial and that an appeal taken prior to a ruling on the motion for new trial is premature. In response to the rule to show cause issued by this court, the appellants filed a brief informing this court that they have now submitted two alternative orders for the trial court to sign, one setting the motion for new trial for a contradictory hearing and one clearly denying the motion for new trial. Since this court has not been presented with an order clearly ruling on the merits of the motion for new trial, we hereby dismiss this appeal as premature at appellants cost. APPEAL DISMISSED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal. 1
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.
