Kathryn Elizabeth Holland v. Paul Scott Holland

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

16-117

KATHRYN ELIZABETH HOLLAND

VERSUS

PAUL SCOTT HOLLAND

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2006-6134
HONORABLE LILYNN A. CUTRER, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
MARC T. AMY

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and D. Kent Savoie, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.

William J. Cutrera
Attorney at Law
910 Ford Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
(337) 433-1414
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Kathryn Elizabeth Holland

Donald Carl Hodge, Jr.
4148 Palm Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
(337) 794-8873
COUNSEL FOR INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS:
Evia Hodge
Donald Carl Hodge, Jr.
Rachel Hodge
Chance Earl DeRamus

Jonathan Johnson
Johnson & Vercher, LLC
Post Office Box 849
Lake Charles, LA 70602
(337) 433-1414
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Paul Scott Holland

AMY, Judge.

This court issued a rule ordering Intervenors-Appellants, Evia Hodge;

Donald Carl Hodge, Jr.; Rachel Hodge; and Chance Earl DeRamus (Intervenors),

to show cause, by brief only, why their 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. For

the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal and remand this case for

clarification.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter arose as a divorce proceeding between Kathryn Elizabeth

Holland (Kathryn) and Paul Scott Holland (Paul). Evia Hodge, Donald Carl

Hodge, Jr., Rachel Hodge, and Chance Earl DeRamus sought to intervene and be

made parties to the partition of the community of acquets and gains between

Kathryn and Scott. The facts are set forth in this court‟s opinion in Holland v.

Holland, 13-636 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 129 So.3d 844, and need not be

repeated herein.

On November 2, 2015, the trial court signed a judgment stating that “IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Exception filed

by KATHRYN ELIZABETH HOLLAND and PAUL SCOTT HOLLAND is

granted. This action is a revocatory action[,] and either prescription or preemption

[sic] apply as per LA C.C. Art. 2041.”

Intervenors filed a motion for appeal on December 2, 2015, and the trial

court signed an order of appeal on December 3, 2015. When the record was

lodged in this court, a rule to show cause was issued to Intervenors to show, by

brief only, why their appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a

judgment lacking proper decretal language. See Thomas, 128 So.3d 1055.

Intervenors filed a brief, attaching the petition for intervention and the exception of

prescription filed on behalf of Kathryn and Paul, and argued that the judgment

contained proper decretal language because it granted the exception and ordered

that all costs be cast against Intervenors.

DISCUSSION

In Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056, this court quoted State v. White, 05-718, p. 2

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144, 1146: “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 denied.”

While the judgment at issue states that it grants the exception, it is indefinite

in that it states that either prescription or peremption applies and does not indicate

what relief is granted. It does not state what claims are dismissed. One must refer

to the exception to prescription and assume that the relief granted by the judgment

is that prayed for in the exception, i.e., the dismissal of the Intervenors‟ suit at their

costs. “[A] judgment cannot require reference to extrinsic documents or pleadings

in order to discern the court‟s ruling.” Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056, citing

Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 01-809 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818

So.2d 906.

In Brooks v. Sibille, 12-1093, 12-1094, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/30/13), 107

So.3d 826, 827, this court found that a judgment stating “IT IS ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment is

hereby granted” did not contain sufficient decretal language. Thus “[i]n the

absence of such decretal language, the judgment . . . is defective and cannot be

2

considered as a „final judgment.‟” Id. at 828, quoting Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish

Sch. System, 11-1133 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So.3d 1073.

Thus, this appeal is dismissed for lack of decretal language. As in Sibille,

107 So.3d 826, we remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings

consistent with this ruling, including clarification of the judgment.

DECREE

We dismiss the appeal as having been taken from a judgment lacking proper

decretal language. The dismissal is without prejudice. The matter is remanded to

the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, including

clarification of the judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED. REMANDED FOR CLARIFICATION.

3