131 Beverly Knoll, LLC Versus Clipper Construction, LLC and Joseph S. Tufaro
131 Beverly Knoll, LLC Versus Clipper Construction, LLC and Joseph S. Tufaro, No. 21-CA-504 (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Feb. 9, 2022).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Dieudonne Enters., Inc. v. Slade 263 So. 3d 1214
- Lynch-Ballard v. Lammico Insurance Agency, Inc. 131 So. 3d 908
- Input/Output Marine Systems, Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Technologies, Inc. 52 So. 3d 909
- Powell v. Gramercy Insurance Co. 113 So. 3d 343
- Bank of New York v. Holden 182 So. 3d 1206
Opinion text
131 BEVERLY KNOLL, LLC NO. 21-CA-504
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
CLIPPER CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND COURT OF APPEAL
JOSEPH S. TUFARO
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 74,367, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE, JUDGE PRESIDING
February 09, 2022
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED
SJW
SMC
JJM
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
131 BEVERLY KNOLL, LLC
Clarence F. Favret, III
James C. Cronvich
Jordan T. Leblanc
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
JOSEPH S. TUFARO
E. John Litchfield
Michael J. Marsiglia
WINDHORST, J.
Appellant/plaintiff, 131 Beverly Knoll, LLC, appeals the trial court’s April
26, 2021 judgment denying its Motion for Charging Order. For the following
reasons, we find the trial court’s April 26, 2021 judgment is not a final appealable
judgment and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY and FACTS
On May 22, 2017, the trial court in the 24th Judicial District Court rendered a
default judgment in favor of appellant and against Clipper Construction, LLC and
appellee, Joseph S. Tufaro. On appeal, that judgment was affirmed by this court on
May 15, 2019. Appellant filed a petition to make the judgment executory in St. John
the Baptist Parish, which was granted on September 13, 2019. An unresolved action
for nullity remains pending since April 30, 2018 in the 24th Judicial District Court,
which denied a stay of the judgment’s execution.
Appellant subsequently filed its Motion for Charging Order pursuant to La.
R.S. 12:1331 seeking to enforce the executory judgment against Gold Star Films,
LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company, which appellee is a member. Appellee
opposed the motion and raised an exception of lis pendens as grounds for denying
the motion. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s Motion
for Charging Order with reasons. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Before considering the merits in any appeal, appellate courts have a duty to
determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the
parties do not raise the issue. Dieudonne Enterprises, Inc. v. Slade, 18-375 (La. App.
5 Cir. 12/27/18), 263 So.3d 1214, 1217; Lynch-Ballard v. Lammico Ins. Agency,
Inc., 13-475 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/19/13), 131 So.3d 908, 910; Input/Output Marine
Sys. v. Wilson Greatbatch Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d
909, 910. This court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our appellate
21-CA-504 1
jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 2083;
Powell v. Gramercy Ins. Co., 12-564 (La. App. 5 Cir. 03/13/13), 113 So.3d 343, 345;
Input/Output Marine Sys., 52 So.3d at 915.
Only final judgments, and interlocutory judgments when expressly provided
by law, are appealable. La. C.C.P. art. 2083. A judgment that determines the merits
in whole or in part is a final judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 1841. A judgment that does
not determine the merits but only preliminary matters in the course of the action is
an interlocutory judgment. Id.; Bank of New York v. Holden, 15-466 (La. App. 5
Cir. 12/23/15), 182 So.3d 1206, 1208.
The remedy sought in the case is provided in La. R.S. 12:1331:
§1331. Rights of judgment creditor
On application to a court of competent jurisdiction by any judgment
creditor of a member, the court may charge the membership interest
of the member with payment of the unsatisfied amount of judgment
with interest. To the extent so charged, the judgment creditor shall
have only the rights of an assignee of the membership interest. This
Chapter shall not deprive any member of the benefit of any exemption
laws applicable to his membership interest. [Emphasis added.]
Exercising the discretion afforded by this statute, the trial court denied the
relief sought by appellant as premature, and chose to wait for resolution of appellee’s
nullity action pending in the 24th Judicial District Court against appellant, the
judgment creditor.
It is clear that the trial court has not given a final judgment granting or
denying the relief for which appellant prays. Because the judgment did not
determine the merits of the case in whole or in part, it is not a final appealable
judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 2083. Further, the judgment does not fall under any
of the specific instances provided in La. C.C.P. art. 1915 A, which would
automatically make it a final appealable judgment. Lastly, the judgment does not
qualify as a partial final judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915 B(1) because the issue
in dispute is not yet fully resolved. It therefore cannot be designated by the trial
21-CA-504 2
court as a final judgment after an express determination that there is no just reason
for delay.1 For these reasons, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this matter.
In so ruling, we make no pronouncement or inference regarding the trial
court’s ruling.
DECREE
Accordingly, we find that the trial court’s April 26, 2021 judgment is not a
final appealable judgment, and we dismiss plaintiff’s appeal without prejudice due
to lack of appellate jurisdiction. This case is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED
1 We also note that the April 26, 2021 judgment lacks the requisite decretal language to be a valid final
judgment. Dieudonne Enterprises, Inc. v. Slade, 18-375 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/27/18), 263 So.3d 1214, 1217;
Input/Output Marine Sys., supra. However, considering the reasons above, we find no reason to remand
the judgment to the trial court to amend because La. C.C.P. art. 1918 A is inapplicable to this judgment.
21-CA-504 3
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
NANCY F. VEGA
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. 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
FEBRUARY 9, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
21-CA-504
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE VERCELL FIFFIE (DISTRICT JUDGE)
VERCELL FIFFIE (APPELLANT) JAMES C. CRONVICH (APPELLANT) JORDAN T. LEBLANC (APPELLANT)
E. JOHN LITCHFIELD (APPELLEE) MICHAEL J. MARSIGLIA (APPELLEE)
MAILED
JARRED P. BRADLEY (APPELLEE) CLARENCE F. FAVRET, III (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW
3421 NORTH CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD 650 POYDRAS STREET
SUITE 105 SUITE 2300
METAIRIE, LA 70002 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130