Succession of Charles C. Pedescleaux C/W Westlawn Cemeteries, L.L.C. Versus The Louisiana Cemetery Board

SUCCESSION OF CHARLES C. NO. 19-CA-250
PEDESCLEAUX
FIFTH CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JAMES, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 89,19, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE JASON VERDIGETS, JUDGE PRESIDING

November 04, 2019

PER CURIAM

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Robert A. Chaisson

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
FHW
JGG
RAC

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
CHARLES PEDESCLEAUX, JR.
Benjamin L. Johnson

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE-2ND APPELLANT,
OLGA PEDESCLEAUX
Arthur A. Morrell
Madro Bandaries

WICKER, J.

This matter is before the Court on appeal of two rulings of the trial court
arising from a January 22, 2019 hearing: one addressing the separate or community
nature of real estate located at 10561 Charles Lane, St. James, Louisiana; and the
other addressing the validity of a will. As the trial court reduced its community
property ruling to a January 25, 2019 judgment, along with separate reasons for
judgment addressing that issue, but failed to reduce its decision as to the validity of
the will to a judgment, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we
remove this case from our November 2019 docket and remand the case to the
district court for preparation of a judgment addressing the validity of the will in
question and, thereafter, for supplementation of the appellate record with that
judgment.

The relevant facts and procedural history leading to the judgment at issue are
as follows. Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. (the “decedent”) died on April 16, 2017.
Olga Pedescleaux (“Olga”), the widow of the deceased, filed a Petition to Open
Succession on April 20, 2017, alleging that the decedent died intestate and
requesting that she be appointed Administratrix over the estate. Olga was
appointed Administratrix for the decedent’s estate on April 27, 2017.

On June 1, 2017, Charles, Jr. filed a “Petition to Admit the Last Will and
Testament of Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr.,” seeking to have the court appoint him
Executor of the estate (per the stipulations of the will) and declaring that certain
real estate located at 10561 Charles Lane, St. James Parish, Louisiana remained
separate property, the decedent having purchased the property prior to his marriage
to Olga.

Thereafter, on December 20, 2018, Olga filed a motion and memorandum
titled:
Motion and Rule to Show Cause Why The Last Will and Testament of
Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. Should Not be Null and Void Because of
Failure to Observe Statutory Formalities; Why Mrs. Olga H.
Pedescleaux, Spouse of Deceased Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. Should
Not be Declared Administratrix of Decedent's Estate; Why All
Financial Documents and Any and All Documents Whatsoever Being
Held by Decedent's Children: Charles Pedescleaux, Jr., Charlesetta
Pedescleaux Knight, Constance Pedescleaux Bernard, Jessica
Pedescleaux Geason, And Deidra Pedescleaux Grant or Anyone Else
Should Not Turn Over Said Documents to Mover and With Full
Accounting of Said Financial Records and Documents and Why the
Marital Domiciled [sic] Should Not be Designated as Community
Property.

A hearing was set for January 22, 2019 to take up Olga’s motion. The
transcript of the January 22, 2019 hearing reveals that the trial court orally denied
Olga’s request that the last will and testament be declared null and void and took
the issue of whether the home on Charles Lane was community property under
advisement. On January 25, 2019, the trial court signed two separate documents.

The first document, entitled “Judgment” provides in its entirety, “IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the prayer of Olga
Pedescleaux that the family home located at 10561 Charles Lane, St. James,
Louisiana 70086 be declared the community property of Charles C. Pedescleaux,
Sr. and Olga Pedescleaux is hereby GRANTED.”

The second document signed on January 25, 2019 is entitled “Judgment
With Written Reasons.” Within this document, under the heading “Procedural
Posture,” the court referred back to the January 22, 2019 hearing and stated, “After
hearing arguments of the parties, the Court DENIED the Mover’s request that the
last will and testament of Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr. be declared null and void.
The Court then took the issue of the family home being declared community
property under advisement.” After further expounding on the law and analysis
relating to the issue of community property, the document concludes, “Therefore,
based on the evidence presented to the Court, the Mover’s prayer that the family
home located at 10561 Charles Lane, St. James, Louisiana 70086, be deemed to be
community property is hereby GRANTED.”

Thereafter, on February 19, 2019, Charles, “in his capacity as the
administrator of the Succession of Charles C. Pedescleaux,” sought a devolutive
appeal from the January 25, 2019 Judgment. Charles specifically appeals the trial
court’s grant of Olga’s motion that the home located on Charles Lane be declared
community property. Charles’ appeal does not address the validity of the will.
The trial court granted the appeal on February 21, 2019 “upon finding that the
judgment of this court dated January 25, 2019 constitutes a final judgment on all
matters contained therein.”

On April 10, 2019,1 Olga filed a motion seeking a devolutive appeal from
“The February 19th, 2019 Judgment of the Court Determining That the Will of
Charles C. Pedescleaux was Valid.” There is no judgment of the court dated
February 19, 2019 in the record. 2 The ruling that Olga refers to in her motion for
appeal was actually an oral ruling made from the bench on January 22, 2019 and
memorialized in the minute entry for the January 22, 2019 hearing and addressed
but not ruled upon in the January 25, 2019 document entitled “Judgment with
Written Reasons.” It was not mentioned in the January 25, 2019 document entitled
“Judgment.” Olga’s appeal was granted on April 15, 2019.

Law and Analysis

Before determining the merits of an appeal, this Court must verify that its
jurisdiction has been properly invoked by a valid final judgment. See Lewis v. B-3
Prop., 2018-0428 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/24/18, 2); 258 So.3d 107, 109; Freeman v.
Phillips 66 Co., 16-0247 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/21/16), 208 So.3d 437, 440. A final
judgment “must be reduced to writing.” Carter v. Ameer, LLC, 18-0703 (La. App.
4 Cir. 2/27/19), 265 So.3d 922, 924; La. C.C.P. art. 1911; see Hains v. Hains,09-
1337 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/10/10), 36 So.3d 289, 301. Furthermore, “appeals can
only be taken from signed judgments” according to La. C.C.P. art. 1911, so an oral
judgment that is not reduced to writing and signed is not appealable as it is not
final. Hairr v. Hairr, 88-550 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/26/88), 530 So.2d 1, 1. When a
trial court orally declared, “motion for summary judgment granted,” at the
conclusion of the hearing on the motion, but thereafter failed to reduce the
judgment to writing, the Fourth Circuit found that there was no final judgment to
invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction. Carter, 265 So.3d at 925.

Valid final judgments must contain decretal language. Id.; Lewis v. B-3
Property, 18-0428 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/24/18), 258 So.3d 107, 109. While decretal

1
The stamp-filed date is illegible.
2
The only document in the record dated February 19, 2019 is Charles’ “Motion For Devolutive Appeal”
from the “final judgment of this court dated January 25, 2019.”
2

language often follows the formulaic expression, “It is hereby ordered, adjudged,
and decreed that . . .,” courts have held that three elements are necessary for a
judgment to comply with the decretal language requirement: it must (1) name the
party in whose favor the ruling is ordered, (2) “name the party against whom the
ruling is ordered,” and (3) “state the relief that is granted or denied.” Lewis, 258
So.3d at 109; Carter, 265 So.3d at 924.

“In addition to requiring that a judgment be precise, definite, and certain, the
jurisprudence has required that a valid final judgment be self-contained.” Lewis,
258 So.3d at 109. As this Court has previously said, “The specific relief granted
should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source
such as pleadings or reasons for judgment.” Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v.
Wilson Greatbatch, Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909,
916. To that end, the law requires that written reasons for the judgment “be set out
in an opinion separate from the judgment.” La. C.C.P. art. 1918 (emphasis added).
The reasons for judgment are not part of the judgment itself, and an appeal may
only be taken from the judgment, not the reasons for judgment. Wooley v.
Lucksinger, 09-0571 (La. 4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, 572; Ricks v. E. Jefferson Gen.
Hosp. Found., Inc., 00-1695 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/14/01); 783 So.2d 457, 458.

Typically the mere inclusion of reasons within the judgment, although
contrary to the requirements of La. C.C.P. art. 1918, will not invalidate a judgment
that otherwise satisfies the decretal language requirements. See I.F. v.
Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 13-0696 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/23/13);
131 So.3d 491, 496; Barlow v. Barlow, 13-1092 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/23/13); 161
So.3d 24, 26-27. However, when the document at issue does not adequately
convey to the reader that “a judgment, as opposed to simply the reasons for
judgment, is being rendered,” the document will not serve as a final judgment
“even though the instrument at issue contains language that constitutes a valid
decree.” Barlow, 161 So.3d at 28. In Parker v, Southern American Ins. Co., the
Third Circuit determined that a document that concluded with the sentence,
“Accordingly[,] the exception of prescription is maintained and plaintiff’s suit is
dismissed at her costs,” was “technically sufficient to constitute a valid decree” but
“of such an ambivalent nature following what was so far reasons for judgment, that
counsel were not placed on adequate notice that the document was intended to be a
judgment.” 578 So.2d 1021, 1023-24 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/17/91).

In this case, the document entitled “Judgment With Written Reasons”
contains sections for “Procedural Posture,” “Facts,” “Law,” “Analysis,” and
“Conclusion.” The holding that Olga appeals from is addressed in the “Procedural
Posture” section of the document and reads like a recollection of an event with the
single word “DENIED” in bold face. The rest of the paper is devoted to an
analysis of the community property issue, and the “Conclusion” section of the
document contains the sole pronouncement that “Mover’s prayer that the family
home located at 10561 Charles Lane, St. James, Louisiana 70086, be deemed to be
community property is hereby GRANTED.” Considering the “Judgment With
Written Reasons” by itself, the language preceeding the court’s disposition of the
issues does not serve to alert the reader that an official judgment is being rendered,
especially with respect to the court’s decision regarding the validity of the will,
which is glossed over in the introduction rather than addressed in the conclusion
along with the ruling on community property. 3 Moreover, a separate document

3
The only document that contained any written reference to the ruling which Olga seeks to appeal was
the January 25, 2019 “Judgment With Written Reasons.” Conceivably, Olga may have thought that the
language of the order granting Charles’ appeal and finding “that the judgment of this court dated January
3

was signed on the same day addressing the community property issue carrying the
title of “Judgment.” Therefore, we conclude that the “Judgment With Written
Reasons” was intended to be “reasons” for the court’s community property
judgment only.

At this time, there is a judgment on the issue of whether the home located at
10561 Charles Lane is community property. Additionally, there are reasons for
judgment on the issue of whether the home located at 10561 Charles Lane is
community property. However, while the reasons for judgment addressing
community property issue also mentions that the trial court reached a decision on
the issue of whether the last will and testament, filed into the record by Charles, Jr.,
is valid, that document does not purport to serve as a judgment on that issue.
Further, that document does not contain the proper decretal language necessary to
form a valid judgment on the will validity issue. The oral decision on the validity
of the will was never reduced to a written judgment.

Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address the trial court’s
January 22, 2019 oral ruling addressing the validity of the will in question.
Therefore, we remove the instant appeal from the docket and remand this matter to
the 23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. James for formulation of a complete
and final judgment on the issue of the validity of the last will and testament of
Charles C. Pedescleaux, Sr., decided at the January 22, 2019 hearing. Upon the
signing of a judgment by Friday, November 8, 2019, the Clerk of Court shall
supplement the appellate record with the judgment no later than the following
Wednesday, November 13, 2019. Thereafter, this Court will docket this case on the
next appropriate date available.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

25, 2019 constitutes a final judgment on all matters contained therein” (emphasis added) somehow
served as a designation of final judgment and was, therefore, the first time the ruling on the validity of the
will became final. If the “Judgment With Written Reasons” were to constitute a final judgment, Olga’s
appeal to this Court is untimely filed.
4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY MARY E. LEGNON

CHIEF JUDGE INTERIM CLERK OF COURT

FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
NOVEMBER 4, 2019 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

19-CA-250
E-NOTIFIED
23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HON. JASON VERDIGETS (DISTRICT JUDGE)
BENJAMIN L. JOHNSON (APPELLANT) MADRO BANDARIES (APPELLANT)

MAILED
ARTHUR A. MORRELL (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 26306
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70186