=

=
m
ro=
:::o=
...... -

N=
N=
N=
c:.n=
co-
=
=
=
u
ANGELO A. CORCEONE NUMBER: 136,741 DIV: B
THE FAMILY COURT
VERSUS
EAST BATON ROUGE
KIMBERLYS.CORCEONE STATEOFLOUISIANA
***************************************************************************s;ILE:[)
MOTION TO VACATE ALL JUDGMENTS and ORDERS
*****************************************************************************
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes KIMBERLY
CORCEONE, a major resident of the State of Florida, who respectfully represents that:
1.
Attached hereto is a certified copy of a Motion and Order to Dismiss Abandoned Suit
filed on May 2, 2003 and ordered by the Honorable Luke A. LaVergne on May 5, 2003.
2.
Petitioner avers that since the suit was adjudged abandoned by this honorable court, and
all appeal delays have long since passed, the suit entitled Angelo A. Corceone v. Kimberly
Corceone, docket number 136,741 in Division B of the Family Court of East Baton Rouge, State
of Louisiana, no longer exists.
3.
Petitioner avers that since the suit was abandoned, anything purporting to be a judgment
or order of this court in this suit is absolutely null on its face.
WHEREFORE, PETITIONER, KIMBERLY CORCEONE, respectfully prays that
this Honorable Court vacate ALL judgments and orders, including but not limited to all child
custody, child support, visitation, and school attendance judgments and orders rendered in the
above-captioned case.
')
,_:
ow
w0



0
r-


r-


u J

\(>" ..

("J i ,,_;;

I 0-
c-1 LLl
- 0
'= c-1
ANGELO A. CORCEONE NUMBER: 136,741 DIV: B
THE FAMILY COURT
VERSUS
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
KIMBERLYS.CORCEONE STATE OF LOUISIANA
******************************************************************************
ORDER TO VACATE ALL JUDGMENTS and ORDERS
******************************************************************************
CONSIDERING THE MOTION and ORDER TO DISMISS SIGNED ON THE s
OF MAY, 2003:
IT IS ORDERED THAT ALL Judgments and orders, including but not limited to all
child custody, child support, visitation, and school attendance judgments and orders rendered in
Angelo A. Corceone v. Kimberly Corceone, docket number 136,741 in Division B of the Family
Court of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana case are hereby vacated.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on this, the_ day of
___ ,2012.
JUDGE LISA WOODRUFF-WHITE, THE FAMILY COURT
SUBMITTED BY:
Miles Law Firm, LLC
251 Florida St. Suite #311
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
phone: (225) 387-0880
fax: (225) 381-0096
:.r J
c-.:
C)Ld

l.W-,

c=o.:

c-.

:..:::::
en
1-
<f)
<
w
')....
I
Ld
' . ...l

I , 'f-
i::J

-, c---1
- I
= I
c--J I

=--
;;;;;;;;;;;;;
m=
co-
;;o-
_..=


N=

=--
-
=

f{P.....
i\ i'l() p 01\
\:
ANGELO ARTURO CORCEONE NUMBER 136,741 DIV. "B"
VERSUS
" ;('""' r;;:: t) . . THE FAMILY COURT
i1" ,.,,, "' .
t:"1.
1
" lf , , '' :- '
it. w- < , . PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
(
r t' 'j{j')
. MP.\ lj iJ I .. '
KIMBERLY STONEWALL CORCEONE ___ TATE OF LOUISIANA
ABANDONED Sl!IT
On motion of Kimberly Stonewall Corccone, defendant in the above captioned suit,
through undersigned counsel, and on suggesting to the Court that this suit has been abandoned,
that service of the petition on the defendant has never been perfected, although an answer was
filed into the record on 24 July 2000 and a rule to show cause has not been filed within two years
of the service of the original petition or filing of the answer, and that this suit should be
dismissed; and
On futiher suggesting that all defendant's costs and commissions due the clerk of comi
have been paid, as evidenced by certificates of the officer, attached to this motion in compliance
with R.S. 13:4201. /l j
/( (:/
- - -,_,t /---
-----;;-\ -
P ARRIS.A. TAYLO , Attorney
3031 Nolih Blvd.
P. 0. Box 4413
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4413
225-336-4983
Bar Roll No. 25519
**** ORDER ****

that the above captioned suit is disrnissed as of tl1e ,!J of
,2003.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this !J -::-day

Judge
* * *
CERTIFICATE OF PAYMENT OF COSTS
I certify that all costs and commissions due the clerk of this Court in the above captioned
matter have been paid.
isiana, this __ day of , 2003.
Deputy Clerk
-y ;:;LERlfOF COURT
J. \_, br.:.,
1 . r . motion to dismiss was mailed to counsel of reco"It,::faf/j.1,E-AM:
plam.1fi, J.JJI to 1ts Lt:mg ftkt. M4y
r;r' . r /v@,t?,/ 2
r this I daY, ..
O 2 ZOOJ
.....
. l
B l R
ouge Lomswna, -- -
a on , . ,.,_.---""'- T\ ,
RE
CEIVED ___ .
II
t-11-\Y - '! 7003
A.ttomey c1 , D r
II
MA '{ - 6 2.003
r:c7:
;, ". , ' H
CLERK OF THE
19TH JUDICIAL COURT
08/ 03/2012 13:45 2253810095 DON SIMt10NS PAGE 02/04
ANGELO ARTURO CORCEONE
NUMBER: 136,741 DIV: B
THE FAMILY COURT
VERSUS
EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH
KIMBERLYSTONEWALLCORCEONE STATE OF LOUISIANA
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
*****************************************************************************
This memorandum. is filed on behalf of' respondent, IGMBERLY CORCEONE. This
matter comes before the Court pursuant to respondent's .motion to vacate.
STATEMEN:f .. OF CASE
On or about June 2000, plaintiff, ANGELO ARTURO CORCEONE, filed a petition
for divorce and ancillary matters. Defendant. KIMBERLY CORCEONE, filed an answer on
July 24,2000. According to statute, p1ain.tiffbad two (2) years from the time of the answer to
file a rule to show cause. Plaintiff did not, and as a result, the suit was abandoned. Defendant's
attorney filed a motion to dismiss the above-captioned suit which was signed by this Honorable
Court on the 5 th of May, 2003.
LAW
La. CCP Art. 3954. Abandonment of action
A. A divorce action instituted under Civil Code Article 102 is abandoned if the rule to show
cause provided by that Article is not filed within two years of the service of the original petition
or execution of written waiver of service of the original petition.
B. This provision shall be operative without formal order, but on ex parte motion of any party
or other interested person, the trial court shall enter a formal order of dismissal as of the date of
abandonment. (Emphasis added).
08!03/2012 13:46
22538100'36
DON SifviMONS
La CCP Art. 1673. Effect of dismissal with or without prejudice
A judgment of dismissal with prejudice shall have the effect of a final judgment of absolute
dismissal after trial. A judgment of dismissal without shall not constitute a bar to
another suit on the same cause of action. (Emphasis added).
ARGUMENT
PAGE 03/04
At issue is whether your Honor can vacate orders and judgments of the court ex-parte in
this matter. By orders of this honorable court, the above captioned suit is dismissed as of the
5th day of May, 2003". This is a final judgment. Since this was an involuntary dismissal
without prejudice, Mr. Corceone bad the option of filing anothe:r suit according to La. CCP art
1673 or appealing. A judgment of dismissal without prejudjce is appealable if it involves an
involuntary dismissal without prejudice. Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Bonfanti
.Industries, Inc., 589 So.2d 575, 579 n.7 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1991 ); see also Dusenbery v.
McMo.Ran Exploration Co., 425 So.2d 249, 251 (La. App. 1st Cir.. 1982) (noting that a
judgment of dismissa1 without is a final judgment and therefore is appealahle; the
exception to this rule occurs when a party voluntarily obtains a judgment of dismissal without
prejudice, then ther.e is no right to an appeal because the party acquiesced in the judgment).
Because the dismissal was entered on May 5, 2003, the time for a suspensive and/or
devolutive appeal has long since run. According to law, Mr. Corceone has one other option and
that is to file another suit.
"What l'vfr_ Corcenne. no, howeve'r, :is himself of any roJiof in the in3tant .,uit.
Quite logically the dismissal would then have no effi.lct if it did not serve its intended purpose. A
judgment of dismissal. terminates the subject lawsuit and all orders and judgments. My client is
simply asking your Honor to terminate those orders which were erroneously made in this suit.
1'be motion to dismiss was entered on ex parte motion as provided by La. CCP 3954. Requiring
a summary proceeding to vacate the judgment and orders which comprise the dismissed suit is
anathema to the spirit and intent of the article. In essence, requiring a rule to show cause on this
issue circumvents the article which allows and dis:mi!i:al of this oa.oe bo done
by ex-parte motion. Asking that the Court vacate orders on a case it dismissed is an issue that
bs/03/2012 13:45 2253810095 DON SIMiv10NS PAGE 04/04
should be done ex proprio motu, however, defendant has provided the court with the certified
copy of the judgment of dismissal. The dismissal was handled ex-parte, certainly asking the
court to enforce its own dismissal should not require a show cause hearing. That would. arguably
be an unauthorized use of a summary proceeding.
In conclusion, my client posits that this case was dismissed as ofMay 5, 2003. The
Court, upon recognizing this overlooked fact, has the duty to enforce its own jud.gment. The case
was properly dismissed and there has been no appeal; therefore, this suit is dead and there is no
mechanism in law to revive it. Because the dismissal was done ex-parte, vacating ali orders and.
judgments (in essence recognizing the court's own judgment of dismissal) should also be done
ex-parte.
Miles Law Firin, LLC
251 Florida St. Suite 311
Baton Rouge, LA 70801
phone: (225) 387-0880
fax: (225) 381-0096