Any disadvantage that an incorrect ruling on venue may pose to the defendant does not impact the merits of the case, and therefore does not outweigh the costs of the subsequent employment of the resources of the judicial process in that venue. Tinsley, [ 602 So.2d 1153]. For judicial efficiency and other "practical" considerations, the defendant is deemed to waive the right to reurge the venue issue once the case proceeds.
Herlitz, supra. and Caldwell v. VAC Federal Credit Union, 545 So.2d 697 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1989) (where this court allowed an appeal by the plaintiff of the interlocutory order transferring the case to another district court following the grant of an exception of venue). Reviewing the Herlitz decision, this court further explained in Tinsley v. Tinsley, 602 So.2d 1153, 1154 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 604 So.2d 1011 (La. 1992): La.C.C.P. art. 2083 allows for the ordinary appeal "from an interlocutory judgment which may cause irreparable injury."
The overruling of an exception of venue is an interlocutory judgment, and interlocutory judgments are not appealable unless they may cause irreparable injury. Initially, this court elected to resolve the issue herein pursuant to our appellate jurisdiction, rather than the grant of writ of certiorari (supervisory jurisdiction), because the overruling of an exception to improper venue may cause irreparable injury. Once a case is tried on the merits in the wrong venue, an appellate court has no practical means of correcting the error on appeal. See Herlitz Construction Company v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981), at Footnote 1. However, because the venue prescribed by article 3941 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure is jurisdictional, an appellate court can correct an error as to venue on appeal, and there is no irreparable injury on that account. Tinsley v. Tinsley, 602 So.2d 1153 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1992), writ denied 604 So.2d 1011 (La. 1992). Thus, in retrospect, the grant of a writ of certiorari would have been our proper initial course of action.
The venue of a divorce action is jurisdictional and cannot be waived. Tinsley v. Tinsley, 602 So.2d 1153, 1154 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1992), writ denied, 604 So.2d 1011 (La. 1992); LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3941 (B). A divorce judgment rendered in a court of improper venue is an absolute nullity. LSA-C.C.P. Art. 3941 (B). Mrs. Wallace argues that the choices of venues to which this divorce action could have been transferred were fixed when the action was filed and that Ouachita Parish was not a viable venue when the action was filed.