Succession of James Roy Davis Jr.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana
__________

No. 26-CA-378
________________

SUCCESSION OF JAMES ROY DAVIS JR.

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 876-092, DIVISION "D"
HONORABLE JACQUELINE F. MALONEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

September 22, 2026

JUDE G. GRAVOIS
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Jude G. Gravois, and Scott U. Schlegel

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

JGG
FHW
SUS

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
CARMELITA JOHNSON
Connie P. Trieu

GRAVOIS, J.

Appellant, Carmelita Johnson, appeals the June 16, 2026
judgment that denied her Judgment of Possession. Because this is an
interlocutory judgment rather than a final appealable judgment, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. However, because
the motion and order for devolutive appeal was filed within 30 days of
the date the judgment was issued, we consider the motion for appeal to
be a notice of intent to seek writs and the order as setting a return date,
and we thus grant appellant 30 days from the date of this opinion to file
a supervisory writ application in this Court.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This matter arises out of a “Petition for Possession” and other
pleadings filed by Carmelita Johnson, surviving spouse of the decedent,
James Roy Davis, Jr., in this succession proceeding. On June 16, 2026,
the matter came before the court on a sua sponte motion. During the
hearing, the court explained in significant detail that several issues
needed to be “corrected” before it would sign the proposed “Judgment
of Possession.”1 The court emphasized that the purpose of the hearing
was an attempt to assist counsel with the necessary corrections so that
her client could obtain a judgment of possession. The court ultimately
denied the “Judgment of Possession.”2

On June 16, 2026, the same date as the hearing, the court signed
a pleading captioned “Judgment of Possession,” placed an “X” on both
pages of the pleading, and stamped “DENIED” on the portion of the
pleading that includes the order/decree language. The minute entry
confirms that the court denied the proposed judgment “as it was
submitted.” On June 18, 2026, appellant filed a “Notice of Expedited

1
Specifically, the court found that: (1) one of the affidavits of death and
heirship did not comply with the Louisiana Civil Code; (2) a renunciation, rather
than the required donative renunciation was completed; and (3) the proposed
“Judgment of Possession” lacked language addressing ownership interests of the
respective parties.
2
After counsel inquired as to whether or not the judgment is final and
appealable—specifically whether the court was solely denying a particular
portion—the court confirmed that the “[J]udgment of [P]ossession” was denied and
agreed “it would be an appeal, not a writ.”

26-CA-378 1

Appeal” from the June 16, 2026 “Judgment of Possession.” The appeal
was granted on June 22, 2026.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In Succession of Cotaya, 24-38 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/5/24), 409
So.3d 860, this Court provided the framework for analyzing appellate
jurisdiction in a succession proceeding involving a judgment that
granted motions to consolidate and adopt pleadings and denied a
petition to dismiss. Id. at 863–64. The analysis began with La. C.C.P.
art. 2974:

Appeals from orders or judgments rendered in
succession proceedings shall be governed by the rules
applicable to appeals in ordinary proceedings, except
that an order or judgment confirming, appointing, or
removing a succession representative, or granting an
interim allowance under Article 3321 shall be executed
provisionally, notwithstanding appeal.

Id. at 863.

The first clause of La. C.C.P. art. 2974 confirms that appeals
from orders and judgments rendered in successions shall be governed
by the rules applicable to appeals in ordinary proceedings, and this
Court thus concluded that Articles 1841, 1915, and 2083 apply to
judicial review of succession judgments “the same as they apply to
judgments in other proceedings,” meaning appellate jurisdiction
extends only “to final judgments and interlocutory judgments when
expressly provided by law.” Id., citing Succession of Ally, 22-16 (La.
App. 5 Cir. 12/31/22), 354 So.3d 1248, 1250; La. C.C.P. art. 2083.

Because the judgment in Cotaya did not determine the merits
either in whole or in part, but rather only preliminary matters in the
succession proceeding, this Court concluded that it was an interlocutory
judgment. Id. at 864. The litigants “all remain[ed] in the case[;]” and
therefore, the judgment “[did] not dispose of all issues in controversy
or determine in full the merits of their respective claims.” Id.
Moreover, the heirs had “not been placed in possession of their
respective portions of their parents’ estates and a judgment
homologating a final account ha[d] not been rendered.” Id., citing La.

26-CA-378 2

C.C.P. art. 3337.3 Thus, “since the judgment [did] not adjudicate all
claims, rights, and liabilities of all the litigants,” this Court found that
it was not a final, appealable judgment. Id. This Court further
concluded that the judgment did not fall within any of the succession
articles providing an express right to appeal, such as a judgment
homologating a tableau of distribution (La. C.C.P art. 3308) or a final
account (La. C.C.P. art. 3337), nor was it appealable as a partial final
judgment under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A).4

Applying a similar framework, the First Circuit in Succession of
Saucier, 21-1466 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/29/22), 344 So.3d 108, held that a
partial judgment denying a surviving spouse’s claim was not final and
appealable because “the heirs [had] not been placed in possession of
their respective portions of the estate and a judgment homologating a
final account by the administrator [had] not been rendered.” Id. at 113,
citing Matter of Succession of Smith, 20-1139 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/2/21),
326 So.3d 1252, 1254; La. C.C.P. art. 3337. The First Circuit
emphasized that since the judgment was not conclusive of the
succession proceedings, it did not constitute a final judgment. Id, citing
Smith, 326 So.3d at 1254. The court further noted that the Louisiana
Code of Civil Procedure “grants the right to an immediate appeal of
certain judgments rendered in succession proceedings,” but the
judgment at issue was “not among those identified by the Code.” Id.;
Succession of Jaga, 16-1291 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/15/17), 227 So.3d 325,
327–328; and Matter of Succession of Smith, 20-1139 (La. App. 1 Cir.
6/2/21), 326 So.3d 1252, 1254. See also Succession of Scott, 23-826

3
La. C.C.P. art. 3337 provides in part: “[a] judgment homologating a final
account has the same effect as a final judgment in an ordinary action.”
4
Final judgments under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)’s exclusive list include
when a court: (1) dismisses the suit as to fewer than all of the parties, defendants,
third-party plaintiffs, third-party defendants, or interveners; (2) grants a motion for
judgment on the pleadings as provided by Articles 965, 968, and 969; (3) grants a
motion for summary judgment as provided by Articles 966 through 969, but not
including a summary judgment granted pursuant to Article 966(E); (4) grants a
judgment on either the principal or incidental demand, when the two have been
tried separately, as provided by Article 1038; (5) grants a judgment on the issue of
liability when that issue has been tried separately by the court, or when, in a jury
trial, the issue of liability has been tried before a jury and the issue of damages is
to be tried before a different jury; or (6) imposes sanctions or disciplinary actions
pursuant to Article 191, 863, or 864 or Code of Evidence Article 510(G). See La.
C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(1)–(6).

26-CA-378 3

(La. App. 1 Cir. 3/20/24), 387 So.3d 652, 656, writ denied, 24-509 (La.
6/25/24), 386 So.3d 1085 (holding that a judgment that did not dismiss
a party, was not a judgment of possession, and did not determine the
merits of all issues in the succession proceeding was subject to appeal
only as provided by La. C.C.P. art. 1915).

As in the cited cases, appellant has yet to be placed into
possession of the estate, which is required to conclude the litigation.
See Succession of Russo, 596 So.2d 365, 370 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992)
(holding that a judgment of possession terminates a succession
proceeding); instead, the court denied the “Judgment of Possession” at
the June 16, 2026 sua sponte hearing. The court advised counsel of
specific corrections required before it would sign the “Judgment of
Possession,” and the minute entry confirms that the proposed judgment
was denied “as … submitted.” The “Petition for Possession” was not
dismissed and thus the proceedings remain open and pending. Because
the merits are unresolved, the June 16, 2026 judgment is not a final
judgment. Moreover, because a denial of a judgment of possession is
not listed as one of the enumerated final judgments under La. C.C.P.
art.1915(A) or provided an express right of appeal under the succession
articles, we conclude that this Court is without appellate jurisdiction to
review the ruling.

CONCLUSION AND DECREE

This appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of appellate
jurisdiction. However, because the motion for appeal was filed within
30 days of the date the judgment was issued, we consider the motion
and order for appeal to be a notice of intent and an order setting a return
date. Appellant is accordingly granted 30 days from the date of this
opinion to file a supervisory writ application in this Court, if so desired.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

26-CA-378 4

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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
SEPTEMBER 22, 2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL
PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-CA-378
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE JACQUELINE F. MALONEY (DISTRICT JUDGE)
CONNIE P. TRIEU (APPELLANT)

MAILED
NO ATTORNEYS WERE MAILED