Court Opinion

ID: 9658526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:04:07.463704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.364299
License: Public Domain

PETERS, J.,
concurring in part.
hi agree with the majority in its conclusion that the trial court did not have the authority to amend this court’s May 30, 2007 judgment. However, I write separately to point out that the trial court’s effort to grant Patricia Glass legal interest on the increased reimbursement was a vain and useless act, as Patricia already has a judgment awarding her legal interest. The amended trial court judgment reads in pertinent part as follows:
ORDERED that the parties’ respective reimbursement claims totaling $256,530.33 for Michael Glass and $301,198.49 for Patricia Glass; it is further
ORDERED that Patricia Glass owes Michael Glass a cash equalizing sum for the difference in net assets allocated, and that cash equalizing sum is $41,380.00;
Accordingly, considering the net reimbursement owed and also considering the cash equalizing sum owed, all as mentioned above, it is further
ORDERED that [a] single money judgment is hereby rendered herein, representing net reimbursement owed and also representing the cash equalizing sum, in favor of Patricia Glass and against Michael Glass in the principal *122sum of $3,284.16 plus legal interest thereon from August 22, 2006 until paid in full[.]
(Emphasis added.)
In its prior opinion, this court made the following amendment to that judgment:
|2For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered as follows. The reimbursement due Michael, considering the conclusions reached herein, is $252,150.30. The reimbursement due Patricia, considering the conclusions reached herein, is $343,682.99.
Glass v. Glass, 07-124, p. 18 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/07), 960 So.2d 378, writs denied, 07-1797, 07-1883 (La.11/21/07), 967 So.2d 1156, 1157.
Thus, this court’s prior opinion only adjusted the reimbursement claims established by the trial court. In fact, our opinion specifically affirmed the remainder of the judgment, which would include the award of interest on the adjusted single money judgment.
In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s opinion.