Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ward-Steinman v. Karst
Citations: 446 So. 2d 999; 1984 La. App. LEXIS 8225Docket: No. 84-120
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; March 8, 1984; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Irving Ward-Steinman obtained a judgment of eviction against Charles Edward Karst, who subsequently filed for a suspensive appeal. Ward-Steinman moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that Karst failed to fulfill several requirements outlined in LSA-C.C.P. Art. 4735: he did not answer the rule under oath, did not plead an affirmative defense for possession, and failed to file an appeal bond within 24 hours of the judgment. The court granted Ward-Steinman’s motion to dismiss the suspensive appeal while maintaining it as a devolutive appeal. Karst had filed a dilatory exception claiming that Ward-Steinman did not specify grounds for eviction, which was corrected, and he was subsequently served with a proper rule to show cause. During the hearing on December 27, 1983, Karst raised a declinatory exception regarding jurisdiction, which was referred to the merits, but he did not file any further pleadings. The trial court granted the eviction judgment on January 4, 1984, which was signed on January 12, 1984. Karst's motion for a suspensive appeal was filed on January 13, and the appeal bond on January 16. The court determined that the suspensive appeal was not perfected in time as per LSA-C.C.P. Art. 4735. Thus, Ward-Steinman was entitled to have the suspensive appeal dismissed. Although the suspensive appeal was dismissed, the court recognized that the appeal was timely for a devolutive appeal, which allows the appeal to proceed under that classification. Consequently, the court dismissed the suspensive appeal but maintained it as a devolutive appeal.