Case Name: Wilson W. WILSON, appearing in his capacity as the curator of rpi Christel W. Fontenot, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-08
Citations: 88 F. App'x 810
Docket Number: No. 03-30445
Parties: Wilson W. WILSON, appearing in his capacity as the curator of rpi Christel W. Fontenot, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 810–810

Head Matter:
Wilson W. WILSON, appearing in his capacity as the curator of rpi Christel W. Fontenot, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-30445.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 8, 2004.
Johnnie Anderson Jones, Sr., Jones & Jones, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David C. Forrester, Forrester, Jordan & Dick, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
We REVERSE and VACATE the judgment of the district court for the following reasons:
First, the district court utterly failed to assign any written reasons for its ruling in this bench trial. Fed. R. Crv. P. 52(a). We cannot affirm any such judgment without written reasons for the rulings.
Second, the district court committed reversible error when it, sua sponte, excluded the testimony of Christel Fontenot, finding her to be incompetent to testify. From the record before us there is nothing to indicate, notwithstanding her particular mental diagnosis, that she was incompetent as a witness. La.Code Evid. Art. 601.
Finally, the evidence in this record will not support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the judgment is REVERSED and VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, including a new trial if required.
REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.