IN RE: INTERDICTION OF JAMES H. TALLEY

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 15-221 IN RE: INTERDICTION OF JAMES H. TALLEY ********** APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CONCORDIA, NO. 48,571 “B” HONORABLE LEO BOOTHE, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE ********** Court composed of Judges Elizabeth A. Pickett, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty. MOTION TO DISMISS UNLODGED APPEAL AND EXCEPTION OF NO CAUSE OF ACTION DENIED. Philip LeTard, Sr. P.O. Box 187 Vidalia, LA 71373 ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: Jim B. Tally Madaline Cross Gibbs Seibert & Gibbs PA 307 Texas Street Vidalia, LA 71373 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE/APPLICANT PICKETT, Judge. Loura Susan Owings (Owings) filed a motion to dismiss and an exception of no cause of action relative the unlodged appeal of the intervenor, Jim B. Talley (Talley), in the matter concerning the interdiction of their father, James H. Talley. For the reasons that follow, we hereby deny the motion to dismiss and exception of no cause of action. On or about April 15, 2014, an interdiction suit was filed by Owings, Following a hearing, the trial court granted . Judgment was signed on, and notice of judgment was issued . On, the trial court signed an order granting Plaintiff On, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss unlodged appeal alleging that. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2087(A)(1) provides that a devolutive appeal may be taken within sixty days of “[t]he expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as provided by Article 1974 and Article 1811, if no application has been filed timely.” Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1974 provides that the delay for seeking a new trial is “seven days, exclusive of legal holidays[,]” which begins to run “the day after the clerk has mailed, or the sheriff has served, the notice of judgment as required by Article 1913.” In the instant case, the judgment was signed and notice of judgment was mailed on. The delay for seeking a new trial expired. The delay for filing a motion for devolutive appeal expired on . . In Seaman v. Seaman, 10-1295, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/10), 54 So.3d 756, 760 (citation omitted), this court noted: While this court is not unmindful of the possible disadvantages facing a non-attorney attempting self-representation . . . the jurisprudence is clear that even if the parties to the action do not 2 oppose the untimely appeal, neither the trial court nor the appellate court has the authority to extend the delays for seeking an appeal since the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional issue. . . . Accordingly, we cannot extend the delay that the plaintiff had to perfect her appeal in this matter. Since we find that Plaintiff did not file an appeal within the delay set forth in La.Code Civ.P. art. 2087(A)(1), this appeal must be dismissed as untimely. We hereby dismiss the appeal at Plaintiff’s cost. APPEAL DISMISSED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal. 3

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.