Carol J. Aymond, Jr. v. Valentina Aymond

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 20-321

CAROL J. AYMOND, JR.

VERSUS

VALENTINA AYMOND

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2011-7451-O
HONORABLE RONALD D. COX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

BILLY H. EZELL

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion, and Phyllis M. Keaty,
Judges.

MOTION TO SUSPEND APPEAL GRANTED;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Randall M. Guidry
Durio, McGoffin, Stagg & Ackermann
Post Office Box 51308
Lafayette, LA 70505
(337) 233-0300
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Valentina Aymond

Cory P. Roy
Brandon J. Scott
Benjamin D. James
Roy, Scott & James
107 North Washington Street
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 240-7800
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Carol J. Aymond, Jr.

EZELL, Judge.

This court, on its own motion, issued a rule to the Plaintiff-Appellant, Carol J.

Aymond, Jr., to show cause why the appeal in the above captioned case should not be

dismissed as having been taken from judgment lacking proper decretal language.

Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La.App. 5

Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909. For the reasons that follow, we suspend the appeal and

remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to issue a judgment containing

proper decretal language.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 5, 2019, Defendant-Appellee, Valentina Aymond, filed a “Motion to

Modify Provision in Custody Plan.” Following a hearing on October 28, 2019, the

motion was granted. A written ruling was signed on October 30, 2019, and reads, in

pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED the Motion
to Modify Provision in Custody Plan is hereby granted as prayed for.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED
that Carol J Aymond, Jr. pay court costs.

Appellant subsequently filed a motion for new trial on November 5, 2019,

which was summarily denied on November 8, 2019. Appellant then filed a Motion

for Devolutive Appeal on December 6, 2019. When the record was received by this

court, we discovered that the judgment did not contain decretal language that

identified the parties cast in judgment or specified the relief granted. Therefore, we

ordered Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as having

been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal language.

Appellant responded to the rule, concurring with this court that the judgment

forming the basis of this appeal lacks the proper decretal language required by law.

Appellant requested that this court suspend the appeal and remand the matter to the

trial court with instructions to sign a judgment containing proper decretal language as

we did in Mouton v. AAA Transp., 17-666, 17,667 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1/10/18), 237 So.3d

594.

In the instant case, the judgment lacks proper decretal language in that the

parties cast in judgment are not named and the relief granted is not specified.

Consequently, this court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of the

appeal and cannot simply allow the matter to proceed in its current procedural posture.

Pursuant to Mouton, we will suspend the appeal and remand the matter to the trial

court for the limited purpose of rendering a proper final judgment.

DECREE

For the reasons given, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this

appeal because it was taken from a judgment that lacks proper decretal language.

This appeal is suspended, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with

instructions to sign a judgment containing proper decretal language no later than

September 4, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Twelfth Judicial District Court shall

forward the judgment so signed to this court as a supplement to the appellate record,

in duplicate.

MOTION TO SUSPEND APPEAL GRANTED; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

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

2