Simple Enterprises, Inc. v. Texas Property, LLC

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 17-222

SIMPLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

VERSUS

TEXAS PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20135599
HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN E. CONERY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, John E. Conery, and Candyce G. Perret,
Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
CASE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT.

Ike Huval
Duhon Law Firm
Post Office Box 52566
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505
(337) 237-9868
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Texas Property, LLC

Eric Scott Neumann
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 2220
Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-2220
(337) 237-1113
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Nedal Qamhiyeh

Dustin B. Gibson
Attorney at Law
1538 West Pinhook, Suite 103
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
(337) 501-2418
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
Simple Enterprises, Inc.
Nolton J. Dalcourt, Jr.

CONERY, Judge.

The Judgment at issue lacks proper decretal language. The appeal is

dismissed without prejudice and this case is remanded to the trial court for

preparation of a proper final judgment with appropriate decretal language in

accordance with the law. See Thomas v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Sys., 13-91

(La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055.

However, we note that this court has stated that “[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 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 pleading 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.

Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056 (emphasis added); See also Stutes v. Greenwood Motor

Lines, Inc., 17-53, (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/8/17), 215 So.3d 287; Holland v. Holland, 16-

117 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16), 188 So.3d 484; Urquhart v. Spencer, 15-1354, 15-

1355 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/1/16), 204 So.3d 1074; Morraz–Blandon v. Voiron, 16-

122, (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/16), 199 So.3d 1220; and Fortenberry v. Cont’l Cas. Co.,

14-953, (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/15/14) (unpublished opinion).

In the interest of judicial economy, within thirty (30) days of this ruling, and

by stipulation of all counsel, the record may remain lodged in this court and the

final judgment on remand may be added to supplement this record, with the matter

then being docketed for final disposition by this panel.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CASE REMANDED
TO THE TRIAL COURT.
This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform
Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-13.3.