Case Name: Raymond Artis CALDWELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Clifford SHIPP, et al., Defendants-Appellants
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-12-01
Citations: 441 So. 2d 808
Docket Number: No. 16070-CA
Parties: Raymond Artis CALDWELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Clifford SHIPP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before HALL, MARVIN and FRED W. JONES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 441
Pages: 808–810

Head Matter:
Raymond Artis CALDWELL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Clifford SHIPP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 16070-CA.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Dec. 1, 1983.
Aylmer M. Wyche, III, Bossier City, for defendants-appellants.
Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin & Roberts by J. Jay Caraway, Shreveport, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before HALL, MARVIN and FRED W. JONES, JJ.

Opinion:
MARVIN, Judge.
Appellees move to dismiss, as untimely, defendant's devolutive appeal taken on September 7, 1983, from an amended partial summary judgment signed on June 28,1983.
The June 28 order amended the judgment which was originally signed on April 8, 1983, and which contained two decretal parts. The first part of the April 8 judgment declared that a particular contract between the litigants dated September 10, 1970, was a credit sale contract. The second part of that judgment ordered defendants to execute a deed in recordable form to plaintiffs of the described immovable property in Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 12 West. The correct range number is Range 13 West, as the pleadings and instruments in the record clearly reveal. On June 28, plaintiffs sought., ex parte, and obtained the order amending the description of the property in the second decretal part of the April 8 judgment. Compare Jackson v. Brewster, 169 So. 166 (La.App. 2d Cir.1936).
A final judgment may be amended by the trial court at any time, without notice, on its own motion or on motion of any party, "to alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not the substance; or to correct errors of calculation." CCP Art. 1951. Paragraph (e) of the Official Revision Comments states in part that "a contradictory motion is required . to amend judgments giving incorrect description of realty . Art. 1919 . requires that judgments affecting title to immovable property shall describe with particularity the property affected." We are not referred to any case squarely deciding that an amendment to a description of realty in a judgment is an amendment of substance under CCP Arts. 1951, 2089.
When an amendment of the substance of a judgment is made without granting a new trial, the amended judgment has been held to be invalid or null and not within the purview of CCP Art. 1951. See Pringle Associated Mortgage Corp. v. Cox, 234 So.2d 854 (La.App. 1st Cir.1970), and at 258 La. 499, 246 So.2d 841 (1971); and O'Niell v. Sonnier, 195 So.2d 724 (La.App. 1st Cir.1967).
An amendment within the purview of CCP Art. 1951 does not affect the delays for appealing. CCP Art. 2087. Miciotto v. Cox, 335 So.2d 798 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976). Delays for appeal are affected by an application for, or the granting of, a new trial. CCP Art. 2087.
A trial court may grant a partial motion for a new trial to amend its previous judgment as to substance. Weber v. Bon Marche Pharmacy, Inc., 378 So.2d 520 (La. App. 4th Cir.1979). Such a motion must be filed, however, within the delay specified in CCP Art. 1974, whether by a litigant, or by the court on its own motion under court's discretionary authority to grant a new trial provided in CCP Art. 1973. Langston v. Willis, 177 So.2d 620 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965).
The revision comment that an amendment to a judgment affecting realty must be obtained by contradictory motion obviously is mentioned to analogize such an amendment to a conventional "correction" deed. Singular action by either the vendee or vendor in the original deed may not be sufficient to correct the original deed on the public records. We follow the spirit of the revision comment and hold that after the delay for applying for a new trial has expired, an amendment to correct a misde-scription of immovable property in a judgment may be obtained only by contradictory motion, and that any such amendment not so obtained may be attacked or questioned either by timely appeal of the order directing the amendment or by the filing of a direct action in the trial court to declare the order amending the judgment to be a nullity. The delay for appealing the original judgment is not affected by an amendment, obtained ex parte, to correct the description of realty in the original judgment.
Defendants' appeal of the "amended partial summary judgment [signed] on June 28, 1983" is timely insofar as it applies to the "order to amend judgment" that was signed on that date which corrected the description of the realty in the second de-cretal part of the judgment of April 8,1983.
Defendant's attempt to appeal the first decretal part of the judgment of April 8, which does not describe the realty and which declares that the contract of the parties of September 10,1970, was a credit sale contract, is untimely, because the June 28 order does not alter or otherwise affect the first decretal part of the April 8 judgment.
In summary, the only issue which may be considered on appeal is the validity of the order, obtained ex parte, to correct the description of realty in the original judgment. Since defendants' appeal of September 7, 1983, is timely to the limited extent mentioned, appellee's motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
HALL, J., concurs in part, dissents in part, and assigns written reasons. .