Melvin L. Maxwell v. Escott Builders, Inc.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1057

MELVIN L. MAXWELL, ELIZABETH
MAXWELL, AND LESLEY MAXWELL

VERSUS

ESCOTT BUILDERS, INC., ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRIC COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20122784, DIV. B
HONORABLE JULES D. EDWARDS, III, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and D. Kent Savoie,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

Amy E. Boudreaux
Daigle Rayburn, LLC
303 W. Vermillion, Suite 210
Lafayette, LA 70501-6869
(337) 234-7000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
The Netherlands Insurance Company

Alan K. Breaud
Breaud & Meyers
600 Jefferson Street, Suite 1101
Lafayette, LA 70501
(227) 266-2200
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLEES:
Melvin L. Maxwell, Elizabeth Maxwell, and Lesley Maxwell

Michael E. Parker
Allen & Gooch
2000 Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 400
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 291-1000
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Air Condition Sales & Service Co., Inc.

Donna Garbarino Schwab
Catherine Fairchild
600 Laurel Street, Suite D
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 771-8200
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Escott Builders, Inc.

Patrick M. Wartelle
Leake & Andersson, LLP
600 Jefferson Street, Suite 603
Lafayette, LA 70501-8928
(337) 233-8403
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Mike Carson Construction, Inc.

SAVOIE, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Defendant-Appellant, Escott Builders, Inc.

(Escott), to show cause, by brief only, why its appeal should not be dismissed for

having been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal language. See Thomas

v. Lafayette Parish Sch. System, 13-91 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055.

Escott’s attorney timely filed a brief admitting that the judgment lacks appropriate

decretal language. Escott’s attorney now asks this court to remand this matter to

the trial court for the purpose of executing a judgment with the proper decretal

language.

This case arises out of the purchase of a newly-constructed residence by

Melvin L. Maxwell, Elizabeth Maxwell, and Lesley Maxwell (the Maxwells) from

Escott for the price of $900,000. The Maxwells alleged numerous major structural

defects allowed significant water instruction, which in turn caused the growth of

poisonous mold and rot. Defendants, Air Condition Sales and Service Company;

Mike Carson Construction, Inc.; and the Netherlands Insurance Company, filed

exceptions of peremption which were granted, with costs assessed to the Maxwells,

by judgment signed on June 29, 2015. An amended judgment was signed on June

6, 2015, assessing the costs to third-party plaintiff, Escott. Both judgments contain

the following language:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that the exceptions of Peremption filed on behalf of Air Condition
Sales and Service Company, Mike Carson Construction, Inc., and the
Netherlands Insurance Company be and are hereby sustained.

In Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056, this court stated:

“[a] valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. A final
appealable judgment must contain decretal language, and 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

1

denied.” State v. White, 05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d
1144, 1146. Moreover, a judgment cannot require reference to
extrinsic documents or pleadings in order to discern the court’s ruling.
Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 2001-809 (La.App. 1 Cir.
5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906.

Clearly, the judgment at issue herein does not meet these requirements. In the

brief filed in response to this court’s rule to show cause, Escott’s attorney does not

dispute this.

The judgments dated June 29 and July 6, 2015, lack proper decretal

language. Therefore, we dismiss the instant appeal as premature and remand the

matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

APPEAL DISMISSED AND REMANDED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.

2