Case Name: LAKEWIND EAST APARTMENTS v. Kerry POREE
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1993-11-30
Citations: 629 So. 2d 422
Docket Number: No. 93-CA-1504
Parties: LAKEWIND EAST APARTMENTS v. Kerry POREE
Judges: Before BYRNES, WARD and PLOTKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 629
Pages: 422–425

Head Matter:
LAKEWIND EAST APARTMENTS v. Kerry POREE
No. 93-CA-1504.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1993.
Opinion Denying Rehearing Jan. 14, 1994.
Brian M. Distance, New Orleans, for appellant.
Juan A. Velasco, New Orleans, for appel-lee.
Before BYRNES, WARD and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
PLOTKIN, Judge.
The trial court in this case ruled in favor of plaintiff Lakewind East Apartments, evicting defendant Kerry Poreé from his apartment. The defendant suspensively appealed. The trial judge ordered the defendant to post a suspensive appeal bond of $825, then ordered him to pay into the registry of the court monthly rental in the amount of $415 on the first of each month until the appeal has been decided by this court.
When defendant failed to pay the required monies into the registry of the court, the plaintiff moved for dismissal of the suspen-sive appeal on those grounds. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion, claiming that the appeal cannot be dismissed because the sus-pensive appeal suspends the order requiring that he pay money into the registry of the court, as well as the eviction.
The plaintiffs arguments have no merit. The order requiring the defendant to pay the monthly rental into the registry of the court is a part of the order setting the suspensive appeal bond; it is not part of the original judgment. A suspensive appeal suspends only the terms of the judgment which is the subject of the appeal. Thus, the defendant has failed to present any arguments which would prevent this court from dismissing his appeal for non-payment of the funds, which the court indicated were a part of the suspensive appeal bond.
However, this court questioned whether the trial court had the authority to require that the defendant pay the rental monies into the registry of the court. Unquestionably, a suspensive appeal bond is most often an amount determined with exactitude at the time the trial court grants the losing party the right to pursue an appeal. The general suspensive appeal bond article, La.C.C.P. art. 2124, provides some definite guidelines concerning the proper amount to set for an appeal bond. Neither the article nor the annotations interpreting the article address whether the suspensive appeal bond can be required in the form of a continuing obligation.
Additionally, the setting of a suspen-sive appeal bond in a case involving an eviction is governed, not by La.C.C.P. art. 2124, but by La.C.C.P. art. 4735, which provides, in pertinent part, that the "amount of the sus-pensive appeal bond shall be determined by the court in an amount sufficient to protect the appellee against all such damage as he may sustain as a result of the appeal." In order to set a suspensive appeal bond sufficient to protect the appellee in this type of ease, the trial court has two choices. One alternative would be to attempt to estimate the amount of time the case might be on appeal, then multiply that number of months times the rental price. The other alternative would be to do exactly what the trial judge did in this ease and require the appellant to post the rental amounts as the rent becomes due. Under the circumstances, we believe that the trial court's solution was the most reasonable since it protects the interests of both parties. Thus, we hold that the requirement that the appellant post the monthly rental at the first of each month is a valid portion of the requirement that the appellant post a suspensive appeal bond.
La.C.C.P. art. 2161 allows dismissal of an appeal for any irregularity which is imputable to the appellant, including the failure to timely pay the costs associated with the appeal. See Crowe v. Howard, 372 So.2d 1057 (La.App. 1st Cir.1978); Bensel v. Goitia, 329 So.2d 233 (La.App. 4th Cir.1976); Case v. Case, 322 So.2d 354 (La.App.2d Cir.1975).
Accordingly, the suspensive appeal in this case is hereby dismissed for failure to pay the suspensive appeal bond.
APPEAL DISMISSED.