STEPHANIE NICOLE DISATELL VERSUS LANCE D. SMITH Vs.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 21-282 and CA 21-283 STEPHANIE NICOLE DISATELL VERSUS LANCE D. SMITH ********** APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 256,049 HONORABLE PATRICIA EVANS KOCH, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** BILLY H. EZELL JUDGE ********** Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, John E. Conery, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE GRANTED. E. Grey Burnes Talley Talley & Talley, L.L.P. 711 Washington Street Alexandria, LA 71301 (318) 448-0482 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Stephanie Nicole Disatell Candace Wells-Losavio Losavio Law Office, L.L.C. Post Office Box 14377 Alexandria, LA 71315 (318) 528-8808 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Lance D. Smith EZELL, Judge. Appellant, Stephanie Nicole Disatell, has filed a Motion to Consolidate the appeal in docket number 21-282 with docket number 21-283. For the reasons discussed herein, we grant the motion to consolidate. Appellant asserts that the appeals involve common issues of law and fact in Civil Docket No. 256,049 of the Ninth Judicial District Court. Further, Appellant contends that the ends of justice would be best served by the consolidation of the two appeals for all purposes. In opposition, Appellee, Lance D. Smith, argues that the two appeals involve separate issues, and the standards of review are totally different. Appellee explains that one judgment results from an oral stipulation recited into the record in open court and the other results from an actual hearing that took place with the judge rendering her ruling from the bench. As such, Appellee maintains that Appellant’s request for consolidation should be denied. We find that the two judgments at issue stem from Appellee’s Rule to Modify Physical Custody and Other Incidentals in Judgment, Rule for Contempt and Other Relief filed on March 16, 2020. The Judgment at issue in docket no. 21-282 addresses custody and child support issues whereas the Ancillary Judgment at issue in docket no. 21-283 addresses child support issues. The issues in both judgments stem from the care and custody of the parties’ minor child. Accordingly, we find that judicial economy would be served with the consolidation of these two appeals. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE GRANTED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.
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.
