In this automobile accident case, we previously dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's judgment that, among other things, ordered the insurer to provide for a knee surgery only if the plaintiff scheduled the surgery within one year, finding that the conditional judgment was interlocutory and not appealable. Kimsey v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co., 13–856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035. Following our decision, the trial court rendered a final judgment in this matter, and the plaintiff again appeals.
Input/Output Marine Sys. , 52 So.3d 909. In the event that a purported final judgment is rendered upon a money demand, as here, the judgment must indicate the amount of recovery with certainty and precision. Kimsey v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co. , 13-856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035 (citing Elston v. Montgomery , 46,262 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/18/11), 70 So.3d 824, writ denied , 11-1292 (La. 9/23/11), 69 So.3d 1165 ). "Importantly, if the amount must be determined by a future contingency or ascertained by extrinsic reference (or is otherwise indefinite and uncertain), it is not a proper judgment." Id. at 1038.
” Input/Output Marine Sys., Inc. v. Wilson Greatbatch, Tech., Inc., 10–477, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915 (citations omitted). Furthermore, a judgment purported to be final and rendered upon a money demand must state the amount of the recovery with certainty and precision. Kimsey v. National Automotive Ins. Co., 13–856, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1038 (citing Elston v. Montgomery, 46,262 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/18/11), 70 So.3d 824 ); see also Fontelieu v. Fontelieu, 116 La. 866, 881, 41 So. 120, 125 (La.1906). “Importantly, if the amount must be determined by a future contingency or ascertained by extrinsic reference (or is otherwise indefinite and uncertain), it is not a proper judgment.”
Where the amount of an award must be determined by a future contingency or ascertained by extrinsic reference, it is not a proper judgment. SeeKimsey v. Nat'l Automotive Ins. Co., 2013-856 (La App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1038. In a domestic proceeding, there is an established doctrine of continuing jurisdiction, i.e., once a trial court obtains jurisdiction in a divorce or separation proceeding, it retains jurisdiction over any incidental matters connected with the original proceedings.
Moreover, a judgment is not final when it anticipates a future contingency and includes an order for such an occurrence. See Barfield v. Tammany Holding Company, 2016-1420 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/2/17) (unpublished), 2017 WL 2399020, *2 (concluding that the district court's judgment granting exceptions of no cause of action only if the defendant were later adjudged liable for additional taxes on the main demand did not constitute a final judgment because it was indeterminate and based on a contingency); Kimsey v. National Automotive Ins. Co., 2013-856 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So. 3d 1035, 1038-1040 (finding that appellate jurisdiction did not attach "in light of the conditional and uncertain nature of the judgment" where the trial court ordered the plaintiff's insurer to provide knee surgery within a year if pursued by the plaintiff and also awarded loss of future earnings in the event the plaintiff pursued surgery, but further ordered that if surgery were not scheduled within one year of finality of the judgment, any party could seek a determination of whether those costs should be awarded at a future date or whether the obligation should be terminated). Notably, if the only award still to be quantified and taxed by the district court were attorney's fees, then this court's appellate jurisdiction may have attached given the 2021 amendment to LSA-C.C.P. art. 2088(A)(10), which now specifically provides that the district court retains jurisdiction after the granting of an order of appeal to set and tax attorney's fees.
As a general rule, appellate courts decline to exercise their supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal. SeeCardon v. Chalmette Christian Acad. , 06-0489 (La. 4/24/06), 926 So.2d 530 (observing that "[w]here there is an adequate remedy by appeal, there normally is no need for the courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction" and citing Douglass v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found. , 96-2825 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So.2d 953 ); see alsoUrquhart v. Spencer , 15–1354, 15-1355, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/16), 204 So.3d 1074, 1078 (citing Douglass, supra , and Kimsey v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co. , 13-856, p. 8 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1040, and noting that "an adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of a precise, definite, and certain judgment containing the decretal language necessary for our appellate review"). Such is the case here. An adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of an unconditional judgment.
Importantly, this court routinely declines to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction where an adequate remedy by appeal would exist after the issuance of a final judgment that has proper decretal language. Kimsey v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co. , 13-856 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, citing Thomas v. Lafayette Par. Sch. Sys. , 13-91 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055. See alsoDouglass v. Alton Ochsner Med. Found. , 96-2825 (La. 6/13/97), 695 So.2d 953, and Bayer v. Starr Int'l Corp. , 17-257 (La.App.
Appellate courts generally will not exercise this discretion "when an adequate remedy exists by appeal" after the entry of a final judgment. Kimsey v. National Automotive Ins. Co., 13-856, p. 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1040. The grant of a writ of sequestration is "an extremely harsh remedy."
In shaping a final judgment awarding such damages, the trial court correctly "indicate[d] the amount of recovery with certainty and precision." Kimsey v. Nat. Auto. Ins. Co. , 13–856, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1038. An award otherwise based on a future contingency does not constitute a proper judgment.
Jurisprudence establishes that the final "judgment must be precise, definite and certain." See, e.g., Kimsey v. Nat'l Auto. Ins. Co. , 13–856, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/12/14), 153 So.3d 1035, 1038 (citing Elston v. Montgomery , 46,262 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/18/11), 70 So.3d 824, writ denied , 11–1292 (La. 9/23/11), 69 So.3d 1165 ). See also La.Code Civ.P. art. 1918, Comment (a).