Case Name: Lionel CRAIG, Sr. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1986-01-15
Citations: 482 So. 2d 148
Docket Number: No. CA 3607
Parties: Lionel CRAIG, Sr. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
Judges: Before GARRISON, CIACCIO and LO-BRANO, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 482
Pages: 148–150

Head Matter:
Lionel CRAIG, Sr. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
No. CA 3607.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 15, 1986.
Concurring Opinion Jan. 27, 1986.
Michael I. Rodriguez, Birdsall, Rodriguez, Robelot & Nelson, New Orleans, for appellant.
Richard M. Simses, Denis Paul Juge, Sutherland & Juge, New Orleans, for ap-pellee.
Before GARRISON, CIACCIO and LO-BRANO, JJ.

Opinion:
CIACCIO, Judge.
Plaintiff, Lionel Craig, appeals from a judgment of the district court maintaining an exception of prescription and dismissing this suit. On appeal plaintiff contends that the grounds for the objection of prescription can be removed by amendment of his petition. Plaintiff argues, therefore, that the judgment is in error for not affording him an opportunity to amend. We agree that the judgment should have provided time for plaintiff to amend his petition.
The record before us consists only of the pleadings, some supporting memorandums, and the judgment. The trial court judgment carries a presumption of correctness. Kerr v. Jefferson Truck Lines, 389 So.2d 729 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980), writ denied, 396 So.2d 1351 (La.1981). Plaintiff does not argue based on the record that maintaining the exception was improper. If he had, there is no evidence in the record to rebut the presumption of correctness. We presume, therefore, that insofar as the judgment maintains the exception of prescription it is correct.
As noted above, however, plaintiff does argue that the judgment should have afforded him an opportunity to amend his petition. La.C.C.P. Art. 934 provides:
When the grounds of the objection pleaded by the peremptory exception may be removed by amendment of the petition, the judgment sustaining the exception shall order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court. If the grounds of the objection cannot be so removed, or if plaintiff fails to comply with the order to amend, the action shall be dismissed.
Plaintiff has presented to this court the ways he proposes to amend his petition to remove the grounds for objection. We find that this case is thus distinguished from Kerr v. Jefferson Truck Lines, supra, where the court noted that "appellant has not pointed out to us with any degree of sufficient certainty how the objection of prescription may be removed by amendment of the petition." We maintain this distinction as significant although the "more important" reason found in Kerr also exists here:
appellant has had a full opportunity, as well as an obligation, to introduce evidence on the trial of the peremptory ex ception to controvert that exception. In our view, C.C.P. Art. 931 gives a plaintiff one opportunity, not two, to correct his petition when he is able to do so. Here, the appellant has had more than the equivalent of such an opportunity.
389 So.2d at 731.
Whether plaintiffs proposed amendments, if made, will defeat an exception of prescription is not before us, and we do not rule on this issue. We do hold, however, that pursuant to La.C.C.P. Art. 934 "the judgment sustaining the exception [should] order such amendment within the delay allowed by the court." Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the district court, and the district court is ordered to amend the judgment to provide for a time delay during which plaintiff is ordered to amend his petition to remove the grounds of the objection of prescription. "If the grounds of the objection cannot be removed, or if plaintiff fails to comply with the order to amend, the action shall be dismissed." La. C.C.P. Art. 934.
REMANDED WITH AN ORDER TO AMEND.
GARRISON, J., concurs with written reasons to follow.