In Re: Interdiction of Stephanie R. Dehoog .

IN RE: INTERDICTION OF * NO. 2024-CA-0809
STEPHANIE R. DEHOOG
* COURT OF APPEAL

* FOURTH CIRCUIT

* STATE OF LOUISIANA

*******

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2023-01979, DIVISION “J”
Honorable D. Nicole Sheppard
******
JUDGE SANDRA CABRINA JENKINS
******
(Court composed of Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott,
Judge Monique G. Morial)

Stacey L. Meyaski
K. Todd Wallace
WALLACE MEYASKI, LLC
5190 Canal Blvd., Suite 102
New Orleans, LA 70124

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

Bianca M. Brindisi
BRINDISI LAW, LLC
3012 19TH ST
METAIRIE, LA 70002

Jeremy T. Grabill
Lindsay Calhoun
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 2000
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REMANDED
MARCH 27, 2025

SCJ
NEK
MGM
This matter arises from an interdiction proceeding. Appellants, Derek

DeHoog (“Mr. DeHoog”) and Eleanor DeHoog (“Eleanor”) appeal the district

court’s October 8, 2024 judgment. For the reasons that follow, we find that the

judgment lacks necessary decretal language, and is not a valid, final judgment.

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

remand this matter to the district court so that a final appealable judgment can be

rendered.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 8, 2023, Mr. DeHoog, the former husband of Stephanie R.

DeHoog (“Ms. DeHoog”) and their daughter, Eleanor filed a petition for full

interdiction, or alternatively, a limited interdiction, alleging that Ms. DeHoog

suffers from mental disorders and is unable to make reasoned decisions concerning

any aspect of her financial affairs or personal care. A two-day bench trial was held

on July 1 and 2, 2024. The district court rendered a judgment which states in

relevant part:

1

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that clear
and convincing evidence does not support the judgment of a full
interdiction for STEPHANIE R. DEHOOG.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that after some monitoring for STEPHANIE R.
DEHOOG, the Court will review whether or not a limited interdiction
should be granted. The review shall take place within 180 days from
the date of the trial.

Mr. DeHoog and Eleanor filed a notice of intent to seek supervisory writ on

October 15, 2024. On the same date, they also moved for a devolutive appeal. The

writ application was denied on November 18, 2024. In Re: Interdiction of

Stephanie R. DeHoog, unpub., 2024-0675 (La. App. 4. Cir. 11/18/24).

On February 12, 2025, this Court ordered the district court to amend the

October 8, 2024 judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1918 within ten days

directing the district court to state that the judgment is a partial final judgment. 1

On February 27, 2025, this Court ordered the parties to show cause by March 13,

2025, why this appeal should not be dismissed, taking notice that the October 8,

2024 judgment did not explicitly deny or grant the petition for interdiction.

Twenty-two days later, on March 6, 2025, the district court amended the

October 8, 2024 judgment to include the following language:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that the court designates this ruling as a final partial
judgment[.]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND
DECREED that this is a partial final judgment in accordance with La.

1 Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure article 1918(A) provides “[a] final judgment in accordance

with Article 1841 shall be identified as such by appropriate language; shall be signed and dated;
and shall, in its decree, identify the name of the party in whose favor the relief is awarded, the
name of the party against whom the relief is awarded, and the relief that is awarded. If appealed,
a final judgment that does not contain the appropriate decretal language shall be remanded to the
trial court, which shall amend the judgment in accordance with Article 1951 within the time set
by the appellate court.”

2

C.C.P article 1915, and based on the court[’]s ruling there is no just
reason for delay.

DISCUSSION

It is well established that appellate courts must examine if subject matter

jurisdiction exists sua sponte, even if the parties fail to raise the issue. Dooley v. CJ

Johnson Home Improvement, 2022-0011, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/13/22), 338 So.3d

497, 499 (citing Phipps v. Schupp, 2017-0067, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/19/17), 224

So.3d 1019, 1021-22). As such, we cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless

our jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. Urquhart v. Spencer,

2015-1354, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/16), 204 So.3d 1074, 1077 (citing Bd. of

Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 2014-0506, p. 3

(La. App. 4 Cir. 10/15/14) 151 So.3d 910). “‘A valid judgment must be precise,

definite and certain. . . . The decree alone indicates the decision. . . . The result

decreed must be spelled out in lucid, unmistakable language. . . . The quality of

definiteness is essential to a proper judgment.’” Id. (quoting Input/Output Marine

Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc., 2010-477, pp. 12-13 (La. App. 5 Cir.

10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915-16).

“[I]n order for the language of a judgment to be considered ‘decretal’ it

‘must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against

whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or denied.’” Urquhart,

2015-1354, p. 3, 204 So.3d at 1077 (quoting Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 2014-

0506, p. 3, 151 So.3d at 910). Additionally, “[t]he specific relief granted should be

3

determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as

pleadings or reasons for judgment.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

Applying this principle, we find that the October 8, 2024 judgment,

including the March 6, 2025 amendment to the judgment, is not a valid appealable

judgment. There is a lack of definitive decretal language necessary for the exercise

of our appellate jurisdiction; specifically, the district court neither dispositively

entered a grant or denial of the petition for interdiction. The judgment simply states

that “clear and convincing evidence does not support the judgment of a full

interdiction for Stephanie R. DeHoog.” In light of the lack of “definitive decretal

language necessary for the exercise of our appellate jurisdiction,” Mr. DeHoog and

Eleanor are not entitled as of right to appellate review. See Urquhart, 2015-1354,

p. 4, 204 So.3d at 1078 (quoting Tomlinson v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2015-0276,

pp. 2–3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/23/16), 192 So.3d 153, 156-57).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of decretal language in the October 8, 2024 judgment, in that

it fails to specify the relief that is granted or denied, there is no valid appealable

judgment. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this

appeal. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice, and remand the

matter to the district court for further proceedings. Once a final appealable

judgment is entered, 2 a new appeal may be filed with this Court without payment

2 This Court in Ohle v. Uhalt, 2023-0501, pp. 8-9 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/10/24), 381 So.3d 136, 142

observed that the Legislature created a procedural mechanism when faced with a judgment with
a decretal-language deficiency—La. C.C.P. arts. 1918, 1951, and 2088; the three articles provide
in relevant part:

4

of court costs. Additionally, the parties may seek leave to supplement the new

appellate record with the record in this matter.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; REMANDED

• La. C.C.P. art. 1918(A): “If appealed, a final judgment that does not contain the
appropriate decretal language shall be remanded to the trial court, which shall
amend the judgment in accordance with Article 1951 within the time set by the
appellate court”;
• La. C.C.P. art. 1951: “On motion of the court or any party, a final judgment may
be amended at any time ... to correct deficiencies in the decretal language” but
providing that “[t]his Article does not allow the court to make a substantive
change to a final judgment”; and
• La. C.C.P. art. 2088(A): after the granting of an order of appeal, “the trial court
has jurisdiction in the case only over those matters not reviewable under the
appeal, including the right to do any of the following: ... (12) Amend a judgment
to provide proper decretal language under Article 1918 or 1951.

5