Case Name: Verlie Labat IMHOFF v. Lawrence George IMHOFF
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-01-21
Citations: 311 So. 2d 45
Docket Number: No. 6712
Parties: Verlie Labat IMHOFF v. Lawrence George IMHOFF.
Judges: Before LEMMON, STOULIG and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 311
Pages: 45–47

Head Matter:
Verlie Labat IMHOFF v. Lawrence George IMHOFF.
No. 6712.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 1975.
Rehearing Denied April 15, 1975.
Writ Refused June 20, 1975.
F. L. Frank Morris, P. R. Johnson and F. L. Morris, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.
Alfred Abramson, La Place, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LEMMON, STOULIG and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
We consider for a second time appellee's motion to dismiss, after an evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to the instructions in our opinion on original consideration. See Imhoff v. Imhoff, 296 So.2d 462 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1974).
At the hearing the court reporter testified that she mailed her bill to counsel for appellant on March 19, 1974, well in advance of the April 7 return date and that she was not paid until early May following a conversation that she had with counsel in the courthouse. Counsel testified that he did not receive the bill; that the first notice he received as to the amount due was when he saw the court reporter in the courthouse in May; and that upon be*>ng advised of the amount he paid her shortly thereafter.
We accept counsel's testimony, but the question remains whether the fault for the delay in the payment of the costs is imputable to appellant.
In Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Lasseigne, 255 La. 579, 232 So.2d 278, the following was said:
"Although the clerk is charged with primary responsibility of lodging the record in the appellate court and with securing extensions of return date in order that the record may be properly completed and filed, it is not incumbent upon the clerk to seek extended return dates or to file the appellate record when costs and fees have not been timely advanced by the appellant or the record has not been completed for reasons imputable to the negligence, error, or fault of the appellant. It is incumbent upon the appellant to keep informed of the return date and extended return dates and of the amount he must pay as costs of appeal. Timely payment or tender of payment must be made in accordance with law under penalty of the appellant's losing his appeal." (Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the above that an appellant cannot, once he takes his appeal and files an appeal bond, forget about the case until being notified by the clerk and/or the court reporter. See also Federal National Mortgage Association v. Woods, 263 So.2d 745 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972).
There is nothing in the record of the evidentiary hearing to show that appellant complied with the duty placed on him to follow up on his appeal with respect to the return date and the anticipated costs. Therefore, we find that LSA-C.C.P. Art. 2126 was. not complied with and the defect is imputable to appellant as provided by C. C.P. Art. 2161.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at appellant's cost.
Appeal dismissed.
LEMMON, J., concurred specially.