Case Name: Scott G. VINCENT v. Janet P. VINCENT; Scott G. Vincent v. Janet P. Vincent
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-01-10
Citations: 949 So. 2d 535
Docket Number: Nos. 2005-CA-1175, 2006-CA-1312
Parties: Scott G. VINCENT v. Janet P. VINCENT. Scott G. Vincent v. Janet P. Vincent.
Judges: Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, and Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 949
Pages: 535–544

Head Matter:
Scott G. VINCENT v. Janet P. VINCENT. Scott G. Vincent v. Janet P. Vincent.
Nos. 2005-CA-1175, 2006-CA-1312.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 10, 2007.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 2007.
Opinion Concurring in Denial of Rehearing Feb. 22, 2007.
Nancy K. Durant, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant.
Rita K. Akehurst, II, Lauren E. Brisbi, Jamison P. Bagwell, Rita Akehurst & Associates, Harvey, LA, for Defendant/Ap-pellee.
Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS, JR., Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, and Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO, JR.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
11 This Court considered the appeal of Scott G. Vincent and pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, the matter was re-argued before a five-judge panel of this Court. Subsequently, Mr. Vincent filed an application for a supervisory writ, numbered 2006-C-1312, which was ordered consolidated with this appeal.
The five-judge panel of this Court issues the following decree:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in awarding interim spousal support in the amount of $10,044.29 per month. Therefore, the award of interim spousal support is affirmed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in awarding permanent alimony. One judge would affirm the award of the district court; however, the other two judges would amend and affirm as amended the award of permanent alimony by reducing the permanent alimony to Three Thousand ($3,000.00) | ^dollars per month. Further, a majority of the panel would limit the award of permanent alimony to a period of five (5) years. Therefore, pursuant to Butler v. Zapata Haynie Corp., 94-1171 (La.7/5/94), 639 So.2d 1186, the award of permanent alimony is Three Thousand ($3,000.00) dollars per month for five years.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court erred in assessing to Mr. Vincent the costs of all attorney's fees in this matter. Therefore, that portion of the judgment assessing all attorney's fees to Mr. Vincent is reversed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in assessing all court costs to Mr. Vincent. Accordingly, the assessment of all court costs to Mr. Vincent is affirmed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in all other respects the judgment of the district court is affirmed;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Relator's writ application numbered 2006-C-1312, is rendered moot by this decree.
AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; WRIT APPLICATION — MOOT.
ARMSTRONG, C.J., and JONES, TOBIAS and CANNIZZARO, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
LOMBARD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned by JONES, J.
. We note that the Appellant filed a "Suggestion of Absence of Jurisdiction of Seven-Judge Panel" with a prayer for relief. The order of this court rescinding the appointment of the seven-judge panel dated January 5, 2007 renders this suggestion moot.