Case Name: Billy G. HALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Scoggins HALLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1984-09-26
Citations: 457 So. 2d 108
Docket Number: No. 16157-CA
Parties: Billy G. HALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Scoggins HALLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and SEXTON, JJ., and McCLENDON, J. Pro Tern.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 457
Pages: 108–110

Head Matter:
Billy G. HALLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brenda Scoggins HALLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16157-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Sept. 26, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1984.
Writ Denied Dec. 7, 1984.
McLeod, Swearingen, Verlander & Dollar, by Robert P. McLeod, P.C., Monroe, for defendant-appellant.
Blackwell, Chambliss, Hobbs & Henry by James A. Hobbs, West Monroe, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PRICE, HALL, MARVIN and SEXTON, JJ., and McCLENDON, J. Pro Tern.

Opinion:
PRICE, Judge.
On rehearing we have reconsidered appellant's argument that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a continuance thus depriving her of a fair trial. We reverse and set aside our original opinion and remand this matter to the trial court for a new trial for the following reasons.
The record reveals that this matter was originally set for trial on July 18, 1983. On that date, a joint motiqn for a continuance was filed stating that the defendant had not sufficient time in which to answer additional pleadings. The continuance was granted and the trial date was reset for September 19, 1983. On August 19, 1983, defendant filed a motion for a continuance due to a conflict with the scheduled trial date. Because of a conflict in the trial schedule of defendant's attorney a continuance was granted and the trial rescheduled for September 27, 1983.
A joint motion for a continuance was filed on September 27, 1983, and the trial date was refixed on October 4, 1983.
On October 4, 1983, defendant filed a motion for a continuance stating that she was hospitalized and therefore unable to attend court. A statement from defendant's physician was attached to the motion. The trial was then continued until October 7, 1983.
On October 6, 1983, defendant's attorneys filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. The motion stated that conflicts had arisen between the attorneys and the defendant and further that the attorneys no longer practiced law together causing practical difficulties in the handling of the case. The court allowed the attorneys to withdraw. On the same date, defendant filed a motion in proper person for a continuance stating that she was obtaining new counsel. A letter was filed into evidence confirming that defendant had retained new counsel and that a reasonable time period was necessary to sufficiently prepare for trial. The motion was denied by the court. In court on October 7, 1983, defendant again renewed her motion for a continuance which was denied. The court stated that it believed the motion to be a ploy to delay the trial. The trial then proceeded with the defendant unrepresented.
Although the trial court did provide some assistance to the defendant, a review of the record clearly reveals that there was not adequate cross-examination, objections to hearsay or inadmissible evidence and questioning of the defendant's witnesses. Further, it appears that defendant became so frustrated and confused with the proceedings that she did not testify. Throughout the trial, defendant continued to express her complete lack of knowledge of how to proceed properly.
La.C.C.P. Art. 1601 provides that a "... continuance may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor." It is well-settled that the trial court has large discretion in granting a motion for a continuance and its ruling should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear abuse. Matthews v. Matthews, 220 So.2d 246 (La.App. 3d Cir.1969). However, there is an abuse of discretion if such discretion is exercised in such a way so as to deprive the litigant of his day in court. Marpco, Inc. v. South States Pipe & Supply, 371 So.2d 525 (La.App. 3d Cir.1979).
It is clear that by denying defendant's motion for a continuance, the trial court effectively denied defendant her day in court. Unrepresented by counsel, defendant was not able to properly defend herself or to present her case. The previous motions filed with the court do not suggest delay tactics on the part of the defendant but rather a series of unavoidable occurrences which acted to postpone the trial. Each of the motions for a continuance presented valid grounds such as defendant's hospitalization and the withdrawal of her attorneys due to difficulties in handling the case.
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and set aside and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Billy G. Halley. All other costs to await final disposition of this matter.
MARVIN, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
SEXTON, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by MARVIN, J.