MARIONEAUX v. MARIONEAUX HBM (2021)

Writ application denied.

While I have doubts about the “splitting” of the appeal into devolutive and suspensive parts, I do not believe that issue is properly before this court. I do note that the judgment creditor may seek a more appropriate bond in the trial court or execute on the non-suspensive portions of the judgment

I would grant and docket plaintiffs’ writ application to expeditiously but more thoroughly examine the res nova issue presented of whether a party may simultaneously seek both devolutive and suspensive appeals from different portions of a district court judgment. See La. C.C. art. 2082 (“Appeal is the exercise of the right of a party to have a judgment of a trial court revised, modified, set aside, or reversed by an appellate court.”) (emphasis added). I would correspondingly address the correctness of the suspensive appeal bond set by the court of appeal when reversing the district court. See La. C.C. art. 2124(B). In my view, the novel issues presented by this writ application warrant further review by this Court.

Hughes, J., concurs with reasons. Crichton, J., would grant and docket and assigns reasons. Genovese, J., would grant and docket for reasons assigned by Justice Crichton. McCallum, J., recused.