You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Petrovich v. Petrovich

Citations: 562 So. 2d 933; 1990 La. App. LEXIS 1432; 1990 WL 68966Docket: No. 89-CA-798

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 16, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Mrs. Romney K. Petrovich's appeal regarding a change of child custody was dismissed by the 24th Judicial District Court due to lack of jurisdiction. The court ruled that her petition should have been filed in the parish where her ex-husband, Luke A. Petrovich, is domiciled, which is not Jefferson Parish. Custody of the couple's two minor children was awarded to Mr. Petrovich in June 1987 by the 25th Judicial District Court, a decision that was later affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. Mrs. Petrovich's reliance on LSA-C.C.P. art. 74.2(A) for jurisdiction was deemed misplaced, as the proper venue for changing custody is Plaquemines Parish, where Mr. Petrovich and the children reside. Additionally, the court noted that Mrs. Petrovich's motion to disqualify her ex-husband's attorney had been previously adjudicated and lacked merit. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's rulings and ordered Mrs. Petrovich to bear the costs of the appeal.

Legal Issues Addressed

Costs of Appeal

Application: The appellate court ordered the appellant to bear the costs associated with the appeal due to the lack of merit in the appeal.

Reasoning: Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's rulings and ordered Mrs. Petrovich to bear the costs of the appeal.

Jurisdiction for Child Custody Modification

Application: The court determined that the petition to modify child custody should be filed in the parish where the ex-husband is domiciled, not where the petitioner resides.

Reasoning: The court ruled that her petition should have been filed in the parish where her ex-husband, Luke A. Petrovich, is domiciled, which is not Jefferson Parish.

Merit of Motion to Disqualify Counsel

Application: The court found that the motion to disqualify the ex-husband's attorney had no merit as it had been previously adjudicated.

Reasoning: Additionally, the court noted that Mrs. Petrovich's motion to disqualify her ex-husband's attorney had been previously adjudicated and lacked merit.

Precedent and Affirmation of Custody Decision

Application: The custody of the children was previously awarded to Mr. Petrovich by the 25th Judicial District Court, and this decision was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Reasoning: Custody of the couple's two minor children was awarded to Mr. Petrovich in June 1987 by the 25th Judicial District Court, a decision that was later affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Proper Venue for Custody Change

Application: The correct venue for filing a custody modification request is the parish of the custodial parent's domicile, which in this case is Plaquemines Parish.

Reasoning: Mrs. Petrovich's reliance on LSA-C.C.P. art. 74.2(A) for jurisdiction was deemed misplaced, as the proper venue for changing custody is Plaquemines Parish, where Mr. Petrovich and the children reside.