Goldking Properties Co. v. Primeaux
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1DissentCalogero, Justice
Although the majority decision seems to reach an equitable result, I do not believe that it correctly applies the law.
I find at least two problem areas in the majority opinion. First, at the foundation of the opinion is the unsupported conclusion that “recordation is an effect of a judgment.” Since La. Code Civ.Pro. art. 2123 provides that a suspensive appeal “suspends the effect or the execution of an appealable order or judgment,” and since the majority finds that recordation is an effect, they conclude that the recorded judgment is null and void during the pend-ency of a suspensive appeal.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
- DeBattista v. Argonaut-Southwest Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1981
- Garlington v. KingsleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1974
- John Chaffe & Sons v. WalkerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1887
- Ortiz v. DemarestLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1984
3Cited by3 opinions
- Matherne v. GuilliotLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1989
- Goldking Properties Co. v. PrimeauxSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1985
- delaVergne v. GalanLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1987