Case Name: Charles E. PLUMMER and Mae Etta Plummer Lewis v. Ora Lee Plummer BROWN, Ruth Plummer Hubbard, Joyce Marie Plummer, Joseph Plummer, Irma Jean Plummer and Samuel Paul Plummer
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2006-05-05
Citations: 934 So. 2d 175
Docket Number: No. 2005 CA 1059
Parties: Charles E. PLUMMER and Mae Etta Plummer Lewis v. Ora Lee Plummer BROWN, Ruth Plummer Hubbard, Joyce Marie Plummer, Joseph Plummer, Irma Jean Plummer and Samuel Paul Plummer.
Judges: Before: CARTER, C.J., DOWNING and GAIDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 934
Pages: 175–180

Head Matter:
Charles E. PLUMMER and Mae Etta Plummer Lewis v. Ora Lee Plummer BROWN, Ruth Plummer Hubbard, Joyce Marie Plummer, Joseph Plummer, Irma Jean Plummer and Samuel Paul Plummer.
No. 2005 CA 1059.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
May 5, 2006.
J. Arthur Smith, III, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee Mae Etta Plummer Lewis.
Walter C. Dumas, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendants/Appellants Ora Lee Plum-mer Brown, Ruth Plummer Hubbard, Joyce Marie Plummer, Joseph Plummer, Irma Jean Plummer & Samuel Paul Plum-mer.
Ricci C. Ross, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ellene Williams Plum-mer.
Before: CARTER, C.J., DOWNING and GAIDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
DOWNING, J.
1 ¿The defendants appeal a judgment that declared certain sales of immovable property by their mother and deceased father to be donations in disguise or sales for an inadequate price. The judgment recognized the plaintiff/appel-lee's right to seek collation in a proper proceeding. We pretermit ruling on the judgment at issue, however, because the record contains no transcript. The record indicates that the notes and recordings from which a transcript could have been produced have been destroyed pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 372 C, which provides in pertinent part as follows: "The court reporter shall retain all notes and tape recordings in civil cases for a period of not less than five years after the end of the trial." Here, more than five years passed between the trial and the filing of the notice of appeal.
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of re-taking the testimony of the witnesses, if available, in order to complete the record so that we can adequately rule on the appeal. See Willis v. Gulf Bldg. Services of Baton Rouge, Inc., 372 So.2d 635, 636 (La.App. 1 Cir.1979).
We note, however, that in the absence of relevant portions of the transcript or a narrative report, we do not possess the factual basis from which to determine the merits of this matter. In such cases, a reviewing court generally will be relegated to applying the presumption that the trial court's judgment is supported by competent evidence and affirm the [¿judgment. See Oliver v. Cal Dive Intern., Inc., 02-1122, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/2/03), 844 So.2d 942, 947.
ORDER
Pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2161, we remand this matter to the 19th Judicial District Court for the limited purpose of holding a hearing for the purpose of admission of evidence, stipulations, and/or taking testimony in order to correct the record by re-creating the evidence, if possible. If the trial court determines that certain relevant portions of the record cannot be corrected, the trial shall dictate an explanation into the transcript of the hearing or provide a per curiam giving the explanation.
The hearing shall be held within 90 days of this opinion. Within 30 days of the hearing, the Clerk of Court of the 19th Judicial District Court shall supplement the appellate record with the evidence, stipulations, testimony, explanations, minute entries, and/or any other information produced in the trial court in connection with this matter.
REMANDED WITH ORDER
GAIDRY, J., dissents with reason.
. The defendants are Ora Lee Plummer Brown, Ruth Plummer Hubbard, Joyce Marie Plummer, Joseph Plummer, Irma Jean Plum-mer and Samuel Plummer.
. Mae Etta Plummer Lewis is the only remaining plaintiff. The other plaintiff, Charles E. Plummer, previously dismissed his cause of action.
.The trial of this matter was held on April 29, 1998. Judgment was signed on December 30, 2004. The notice of appeal was filed on March 9, 2005.