From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit
Mar 24, 2006
934 So. 2d 66 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

holding that 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, and that a judgment that sustains the objection of no cause of action, yet does not contain decretal language, cannot be considered as a final judgment for purpose of an appeal

Summary of this case from Wesley v. David

Opinion

No. 2005 CA 0337.

March 24, 2006.

Appeal from the Twenty-third Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No. 79,565, Thomas Kliebert, Jr., J.

Walter C. Dumas, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Lucille Johnson, Sam Baker, Leatrice S. Drummond, Vyron White, Juanita F. Whitley and Joyce S. Veal.

Winston G. DeCuir, Sr., Winston G. DeCuir, Jr., Brandon J. DeCuir, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, Rev. Dr. Irvin Briley, Jr., Ophelia Johnson, Mary Holloway, Letitia Briley Polar, and Cynthia Robins.

Before: CARTER, C.J., DOWNING and GAIDRY, JJ.


This is an appeal from a trial court judgment sustaining the defendants' exception of no cause of action. For the following reasons, we remand this matter to the lower court for further proceedings.

DISCUSSION

Lucille Johnson, Sam Baker, Leatrice S. Drummond, Vyron White, Juanita F. Whitley, Dianne Cushenberry, and Joyce S. Veal, (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed suit in December 2004 against Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, Reverend Dr. Irvin Briley, Jr., Ophelia Johnson, Mary Holloway, Letitia Briley Polar, and Cynthia Robins, (collectively "Defendants"), to prevent the merger of Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church with Mount Calvary Baptist Church and the creation of First Pilgrim Calvary Missionary Baptist Church. Plaintiffs' petition sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment, as well as other relief. Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action, which was sustained by the trial court after a hearing. In sustaining the exception, the trial court stated that he was dismissing plaintiffs' claims. However, the judgment signed by the trial court on January 31, 2005 simply states:

The Court, after considering the exceptions, evidence and supporting memorandum filed by both parties,

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Defendants' Exception of No Cause of Action is granted for the reasons provided orally in open court this day.

This judgment, prepared by the plaintiffs' attorney and approved as to content and form by the defendants' attorney, does not dismiss plaintiffs' claims. This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to "final judgments." La. C.C.P. art. 2083; Van ex rel. White v. Davis, 00-0206 (La.App. 1 Cir.2/16/01), 808 So.2d 478, 483. A judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 01-0809 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906. 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, 01-2016 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43. Because the January 31, 2005 judgment is defective in that it does not contain decretal language, we cannot consider it as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal. La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B). This court lacks jurisdiction to review this judgment; therefore, we remand this matter to the lower court for further proceedings. Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 01-2016, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/27/02), 837 So.2d 43, 44. Costs of this appeal are to be shared equally by the parties.

REMANDED.

DOWNING, J., concurs.


Summaries of

Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit
Mar 24, 2006
934 So. 2d 66 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

holding that 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, and that a judgment that sustains the objection of no cause of action, yet does not contain decretal language, cannot be considered as a final judgment for purpose of an appeal

Summary of this case from Wesley v. David

finding that language in a judgment that granted an exception of no cause of action but did not dismiss plaintiffs' claims lacked appropriate decretal language and did not constitute a final judgment for purposes of immediate appeal

Summary of this case from Bennett v. La. Dep't of Ins.

finding that language in a judgment that granted an exception of no cause of action but did not dismiss plaintiffs' claims lacked appropriate decretal language and did not constitute a final judgment for purposes of immediate appeal

Summary of this case from In re Pellette
Case details for

Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim

Case Details

Full title:Lucille JOHNSON, Sam Baker, Leatrice S. Drummond, Vyrom White, Juanita F…

Court:Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit

Date published: Mar 24, 2006

Citations

934 So. 2d 66 (La. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Vanderbrook v. Jean

This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments. See La.C.C.P. art. 2083; Johnson v. Mount…

Tchefuncte Harbour Ass'n v. Branighan

As noted in this court's May 6, 2022 Rule to Show Cause Order, "[t]he November 16, 2021 judgment at issue…