Opinion
NUMBER 2018 CA 1074
02-25-2019
CALVIN J. HILL, ET AL v. TMR EXPLORATION, INC., PARK EXPLORATION, INC., AND VITOL RESOURCES, INC., ET AL
Brent K. DeLee Kirby J. Guidry Baton Rouge, LA Attorneys for Appellees Plaintiffs - Calvin J. Hill, et al. James L. Williams, IV Don R. Beard Baton Rouge, LA and Francis J. Barry, Jr. Isaac H. Ryan Michael T. Amy New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Appellant Defendant - Vitol Resources Inc. of Delaware
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of West Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Trial Court Number 41245 Honorable Bruce C. Bennett, Judge Pro Tempore Brent K. DeLee
Kirby J. Guidry
Baton Rouge, LA Attorneys for Appellees
Plaintiffs - Calvin J. Hill, et al. James L. Williams, IV
Don R. Beard
Baton Rouge, LA
and
Francis J. Barry, Jr.
Isaac H. Ryan
Michael T. Amy
New Orleans, LA Attorneys for Appellant
Defendant - Vitol Resources Inc.
of Delaware BEFORE: WELCH, CHUTZ, AND LANIER, JJ. WELCH, J.
In this dispute involving a claim for damages for a subsurface trespass, the defendant, Vitol Resources, Inc. ("Vitol"), appeals a judgment granting a partial motion for summary judgment and assessing Vitol with all costs. For reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.
The judgment was designated as a final judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).
BACKGROUND
This suit arises out of the drilling and production of the well designated as A. Wilbert and Son's L.L.C. 93 No. 1, Serial No. 235591, located in Section 93, Township 7 South, Range 10 East, West Baton Rouge Parish ("the well"). TMR Exploration, Inc. ("TMR") drilled the well in 2007 and completed the well in 2008. In 2010, the well was sold to an affiliate of Park Exploration, Inc. ("Park"), which then operated the well. Park then sold the well and other properties to Vitol in 2012, and Vitol currently operates the well. In February 2014, Calvin J. Hill individually and as the duly appointed executor of the succession of Elnora Johnson Hill, filed a petition seeking damages from TMR, Park, and Vitol for a subsurface trespass, claiming that the well drilled by TMR resulted in a well bore and bottom hole located beneath the property owned by plaintiffs. The petition was subsequently supplemented and amended to include, as plaintiffs, numerous individuals who were owners of various undivided interests in the property affected by the alleged subsurface trespass.
On August 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment to cancel oil, gas, and mineral leases. On November 2, 2017, the trial court signed a judgment, which provided as follows:
Considering the foregoing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to Cancel Oil, Gas and Mineral Leases filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs;
IT IS HER[E]BY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED and that all costs shall be assessed against Vitol....
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this Judgment shall be designated as a final judgment pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1915(B)(1), the Court having expressly determined that there is no just reason for delay.
From this judgment, Vitol has appealed, challenging the trial court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.
Thereafter, on August 10, 2018, this Court issued a rule to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the November 2, 2017 judgment appeared to be a non-appealable ruling as it only provided that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, but failed to state the specific relief that was awarded. Vitol filed a response to this Court's show cause order, asserting that the La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B) designation was proper and that an explanation of the "secondary effects" of the granting of the motion was not required, as the trial court's written reasons for judgment provided a detailed discussion of the issues. Alternatively, Vitol requested that this Court convert its appeal of the November 2, 2017 judgment to an application for supervisory writs. On October 2, 2018, another panel of this Court referred the merits of the rule to show cause to this panel. See Hill v. TMR Exploration, Inc., 2018-1074 (La. App. 1st Cir. 10/2/2018)(unpublished action).
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 2011-0520 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/9/11), 79 So.3d 1054, 1059, writ denied, 2012-0360 (La. 4/9/12), 85 So.3d 698. This Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to "final judgments," which are those that determine the merits in whole or in part. See La. C.C.P. art. 1841 and 2083.
A valid judgment must be "precise, definite, and certain." Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002-0045 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/20/02), 836 So.2d 364, 365-366. Moreover, 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. See Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001-2016 (La. App. 1st Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record, such as pleadings and reasons for judgment. Laird, 836 So.2d at 366. Thus, a judgment that does not contain decretal language cannot be considered as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such a judgment. See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005-0337 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/24/06), 934 So.2d 66, 67. Furthermore, although a trial court may grant a partial judgment as to less than all the claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party and designate such judgment as a final judgment after an express determination that there is no just reasons for delay, as authorized by La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B), the judgment must still comply with the requirement that it contain decretal language. Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015-0393, p.6 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/23/15) (unpublished); see also Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish School System, 2011-1133 (La. App. 1st Cir. 3/23/12), 91 So.3d 1073, 1074.
In this case, although the November 2, 2017 judgment at issue granted a motion for partial summary judgment and indicates that the motion was filed by the plaintiffs, the judgment lacks sufficient language as to the parties in favor of whom the ruling was rendered and against whom it was rendered, and it fails to set forth the relief awarded by the granting of the motion. While the appellants point out that the trial court's written ruling or reasons for judgment contain a detailed discussion of the issues, the specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment itself without reference to an extrinsic source, such as a pleading or reasons for judgment. State by and through Caldwell v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., 2017-0448 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/8/18), 242 So.3d 597, 602. In the absence of appropriate decretal language, the November 2, 2017 judgment is defective and cannot be considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal, notwithstanding the trial court's certifying it as such. Thus, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review this matter and we must dismiss this appeal.
As previously noted, Vitol has alternatively requested that this Court convert this appeal to a supervisory writ application. The decision to convert an appeal to an application for supervisory writs is within the discretion of the appellate courts. Stelluto v. Stelluto, 2005-0074 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So.2d 34, 39. Generally, appellate courts have exercised that discretion when the motion for appeal was filed within the thirty-day time period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4-3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, and where reversal of the trial court's decision would terminate the litigation, or where clear error in the trial court's judgment, if not corrected, will create a grave injustice. However, when the jurisdictional defect lies in the non-finality of a judgment (as opposed to an appeal from an interlocutory judgment), an appellate court will generally refrain from the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal. In such cases, an adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of the requisite precise, definite, and certain decretal language necessary for appellate review. This is because in the absence of proper decretal language, the judgment is defective, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits, even if we were to convert the matter to an application for supervisory writs. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this appeal of a judgment that is not final for lack of decretal language to an application for supervisory writs. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc., 2015-0393 pp. 6-9. --------
CONCLUSION
For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the appeal of the November 2, 2017 judgment is dismissed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Vitol Resources, Inc.
APPEAL DISMISSED.