Court Opinion

ID: 9943480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 17:06:08.109838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:05.955771
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                     COURT OF APPEAL

                                      FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 NUMBER 2023 CA 0827

                                 STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                          VERSUS

                          LESLEY LASHELL WALLACE AND
                            JARRELL CYNTELL WILLIAMS
     lL

 n
V'
                                                           Judgment Rendered:   FEB 2 3 2024

                                     On appeal from the
                          Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
                            In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
                                      State of Louisiana
                                 Docket Number 11- 0011

                   Honorable Patrice W. Oppenheim, Judge Presiding

          Jarrell Cyntell Williams                Defendant/ Appellant
          Slidell, LA                             In Proper Person

          Tammy B. Keaton                         Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
          Leanne M. Kimble                        State of Louisiana, Department
          Mary T. Strahan                         of Children and Family Services
          Covington, LA

                 BEFORE: GUIDRY, C. J., CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ.
GUIDRY, C.J.

       This is an appeal of a trial court judgment granting a motion to modify child

support.     For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal.

                       FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       On January 6, 2011, the State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services

 now referred to as the Department of Children and Family Services and

hereinafter referred to as " DCFS")       filed a rule to establish child support and

medical support against Jarrell Cyntell Williams and Lesley Lashell Wallace.'

Subsequently, a judgment for child support was rendered for the minor child, D.W.

The judgment ordered, among other things, that Mr. Williams pay $ 350. 00 plus a

5% administrative fee per month for the child' s support.

       On or about September 12, 2016, Mr. Williams'             child   support obligation

was decreased.2 Thereafter, on June 7, 2022, DCFS filed a rule to review and set

child support, which was heard by a hearing officer, who recommended that Mr.

Williams' child support obligation be increased.          Mr. Williams objected to the

recommendation, requesting a hearing before the trial court, which was held on

February 10, 2023. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court modified and

increased Mr. Williams'       child support obligation.    The judgment was signed on

February 17, 2023. DCFS filed a motion for new trial on February 27, 2023. 3 Mr.

Williams filed the instant appeal on March 31, 2023, before the trial court could

address the motion for new trial.

  We note that Ms. Wallace applied for child support collection services from the State of
Louisiana.

2 Mr. Williams' child support payment was decreased after DCFS filed a rule to review and set
child support in July 2016.

3 Notice of the judgment was mailed on March 10, 2023.

                                             2
                                        DISCUSSION

        This court issued a rule to show cause why Mr. Williams' appeal should not

be dismissed as premature, noting that the appellate record did not include a ruling

on DCFS' motion for new trial.          In his response to this court' s show cause order,

Mr. Williams avers that the trial court " made judgment without giving [ him] proof

of the Childcare."        Mr. Williams asks this court for a " fair trial."             We note,

however, that Mr. Williams has given no indication to this court whether the

motion for new trial was acted upon.'          Appellee DCFS was notified of this court' s

show cause order, but failed to respond.

        An order of appeal is premature if granted before the trial court disposes of

all timely filed motions for new trial. See La. C. C. P. art. 2123( C).          Further, unless

the motion for new trial is denied, the trial court is not divested of its original

jurisdiction, and the appellate court' s jurisdiction does not attach.           See La. C. C. P.

art. 2087( D); Lane v. Lane, 15- 1572 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 2/ 26/ 16), 2016 WL 770832

 2 ( unpublished).

        In the present matter, because nothing in the record and nothing produced in

response to this court' s order shows that the motion for new trial was denied, this

appeal is premature.       Accordingly, given our lack of jurisdiction, we must dismiss

the appeal.

                                       CONCLUSION

       For the above and foregoing reasons, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendant/ appellant Jarrell Cyntell

Williams.

       APPEAL DISMISSED.

a The record before us shows that the trial court signed an order setting the hearing on the motion
for new trial for July 14, 2023.

                                                3