Court Opinion

ID: 9376466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 19:04:30.530645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:06.935759
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                          STATE OF LOUISIANA

                            COURT OF APPEAL

                              FIRST CIRCUIT

                                2022 CA 0404

             TCHEFUNCTE HARBOUR ASSOCIATION, INC.

                                  VERSUS

                          THOMAS BRANIGHAN

                                  Judgment Rendered.
                                                       MAR 0 12023

               Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court
                     In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
                              State of Louisiana
                             Case No. 2021- 11742

             The Honorable Raymond Childress, Judge Presiding

Joshua D. Allison                   Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellant
Covington, Louisiana                Tchefuncte Harbour Association, Inc.

Wayne J. Jablonowski                Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Slidell, Louisiana                  Thomas Branighan

             BEFORE:    WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
LANIER, J.

      In this appeal, plaintiff challenges a judgment of the district court that

sustained defendant' s exceptions raising the objections of res judicata, no cause of

action, and no right of action and awarded defendant $    1, 500.00 in attorney fees.

Defendant answered the appeal, seeking an increase in the amount of attorney fees

awarded below, as well as an award of attorney fees for the work done on appeal.

For the reasons that follow, we dismiss both the appeal and the answer to the

appeal.

                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      The matter before us involves a complicated procedural history between a

homeowner, Thomas Branighan, and his homeowners' association, the Tchefuncte

Harbour Association, Inc. (" THA").    On July 16, 2018, Mr. Branighan, the owner

of Unit E- 2 ("   the   townhome")   in the Tchefuncte Harbour, A Planned Unit

Development, filed a petition for writ of mandamus against THA and its president,

Barbara Lewis, seeking an order for THA to perform certain modifications and

structural repairs in his townhome community pursuant to the declarations and by-

laws of the THA.        The trial on the petition for writ of mandamus began on

September 19, 2018, and was set to resume on December 5, 2018.               However,

according to the record, the parties began settlement negotiations and purportedly

reached a settlement agreement, whereby in exchange for THA completing the

work requested, Mr. Branighan would dismiss, with prejudice, the petition for writ

of mandamus he had filed against THA and Mrs. Lewis. The settlement agreement

also provided that THA would pay Mr. Branighan's attorney fees and costs in the

amount of $5, 256. 40 and would pay all expenses, attorney fees, and costs incurred

to enforce the settlement if any part of the agreement was not adhered to.

      Thereafter, THA filed a " Motion to Enforce Settlement, Motion for Entry of

Protective Order, and Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees and Court Costs,"         arguing

                                          K
that despite the parties' valid and enforceable settlement agreement, Mr. Branighan

continued to harass and disparage current and former THA board members and its

counsel.    Following a hearing on December 5, 2018, the district court granted the

Motion to Enforce Settlement, attaching to the judgment a copy of the Receipt and

Release Agreement (" Receipt and Release") that the parties had confected but had

not yet signed.    The court denied THA's remaining motions, including its motion

for attorney fees and costs.      A judgment in accordance with these findings was

signed by the district court on January 3, 2019.

         On March 16, 2020, Mr. Branighan filed a " Petition for Enforcement of

Judgment and Settlement, for Contempt, for Writ of Mandamus and for Attorney

Fees."    Mr. Branighan argued that THA failed to comply with the requirements of

the court's January 3, 2019 judgment and the terms of the Receipt and Release.

         In response, on June 2, 2020, THA filed a " Motion to Enforce Settlement

Agreement and Motion for Contempt,"              alleging that as THA had satisfied its

obligations under the Receipt and Release, the only remaining obligation was that

of Mr. Branighan to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus.            THA noted that

the Receipt and Release " purported to compromise and settle the entirety of the

dispute between the parties as set forth in the July 16, 2018 Writ ofMandamus and

therefore amounts to a settlement agreement."         THA further acknowledged that by

virtue of the court's January 3, 2019 judgment, the Receipt and Release had

become a lawful court order. Thus, THA asserted, Mr. Branighan should be held

in contempt of court for willful violation of a court order.

         The parties again began settlement negotiations in an effort to avoid further

litigation.   As set forth in a December 11, 2020 letter from THA's counsel to Mr.

Branighan's     counsel,   the   proposed   settlement   included   the   dismissal,   with

prejudice, of all pending suits and motions, THA's agreement not to follow through

with a nuisance lawsuit against Mr. Branighan, and THA's agreement to " pay the

                                             3
costs of the outstanding attorneys' fees"          not to exceed $    2, 000. 00.   Thereafter, the

parties moved for voluntary dismissal of all matters with prejudice. On January 8,

2021,     the court signed an order dismissing,              with   prejudice,   Mr. Branighan' s

 Petition for Enforcement of Judgment and Settlement, for Contempt, for Writ of

Mandamus and for Attorney Fees." On January 13, 2021, the court signed an order

dismissing, with prejudice, THA' s " Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and

Motion for Contempt."

         On January 25,        2021,   Mr. Branighan filed paperwork with the State of

Louisiana for 4421           Properties LLC.       Thereafter,      on February 2,      2021,   Mr.

Branighan received a commitment from Metairie Bank for a loan in the amount of

     485, 000.00 for the purchase of commercial property located at 942 North

Rampart Street, New Orleans, Louisiana.

         Subsequently, on February 19, 2021,              THA issued a Notice of Fine to Mr.

Branighan, seeking to recover $ 78, 344. 54 in attorney fees and legal costs pursuant

to     Article    VII, Section    9{ b}   of the   Amended      and Restated Declaration of

Servitudes, Conditions and Restrictions of Tchefuncte Harbour,                      dated July 21,

2020, and Article VII, Section 8 of the Amended and Restated Declaration of

Servitudes, Conditions and Restrictions of Tchefuncte Harbour, dated January 5,

2018.     Attached to THA's Notice of Fine was an itemized listing of the " TOTAL

ATTORNEY FEES AND LEGAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE BOARD ON

BEHALF OF [ THA] BECAUSE OF [ MR.] BRANIGHAN"                                    setting forth the

following fees and costs:

1.        Alker & Rather, LLC 7130118- 7131119
           22, 712. 60- Branighan

2.        Joshua D. Allison, A Professional Law Corporation 7/ 25/ 19- 1/ 26/ 21
          1-$   16, 838. 63- Branighan Litigation # 1 -   July 16, 2018 Lawsuit against [ THA]
          2 -$3, 087. 49 -General Advices
          3-$ 10, 412. 02-   Branighan Litigation # 2 -March         16, 2020 Lawsuit against
           THA]

                                                   4
       4-$ 9,922. 80- Branighan Litigation # 3 -April 23, 2020 Lawsuit against [ Mr.
       Branighan]
       5-$ 4, 352. 25-   Branighan       Litigation # 4 -Nuisance         Lawsuit     against [   Mr.
       Branighan]

3.     Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L.L.P. 5129/ 20- 7/ 21/ 20
        11, 018. 75 -Amendments to Declaration

       On April 19, 2021,          THA filed a " Petition for Monies Due" against Mr.

Branighan, seeking to recover the fees and costs set forth in its previously issued

notice of fine.     In response thereto, Mr. Branighan filed exceptions raising the

objections of res judicata,         no   cause   of action,    and   no   right   of action.      THA

subsequently filed a first amended petition, acknowledging that the January 3,

2019 judgment rendered that portion of the February 19,                     2021 Notice of Fine

attributable to Alker & Rather, LLC " res judicata and therefore unenforceable."

THA asserted that all other portions of the fine, totaling $ 55, 631. 94, remained

enforceable.

       On February 25,       2021, Mr. Branighan executed an act of conveyance,

wherein he conveyed the townhome to 4421 Properties, LLC.                          On October 13,

2021, THA filed a motion to annul, seeking to annul the February 25, 2021 act of

conveyance     and to    enjoin,    restrain,    or otherwise prohibit Mr. Branighan from

transferring his immovable property located within the development managed by

THA.   Mr. Branighan's exceptions and THA's motion to annul were set for hearing

on November 5, 2021,        at which time the matter was argued by the parties and

evidence was offered and introduced in support of the exceptions.

       On November 16, 2021, the district court signed a judgment, providing, in

pertinent part:

               IT IS ORDERED that the Exceptions of Res Judicata, No
       Cause of Action and No Right of Action filed on behalf of Thomas
       Branighan are hereby GRANTED.

               IT   IS   FURTHER           ORDERED            that   Tchefuncte      Harbour

       Association, Inc. shall pay to Tom Branighan the amount of $1, 500. 00
       for attorney fees.

                                                   5
                   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Annul Act of
       Conveyance filed on behalf of Tchefuncte Harbour Association, Inc.
       is rendered MOOT.

THA appealed.

                               APPELLATE JURISDICTION

       On May 6, 2022, this court, ex proprio motu, issued a rule to show cause

finding an apparent defect in the November 16, 2021 judgment. Particularly, this

court noted that the judgment was " ambiguous as to the relief' awarded and that it

 merely enters judgment granting the exceptions ...          but lacks decretal language

disposing of and/ or dismissing plaintiffs claims."

       In response to the rule to show cause, THA filed an " Ex -Parte Unopposed

Motion and Order for Execution of Amended Judgment and to Supplement Record

on Appeal"         in the district court, along with an amended judgment for the district

court' s    signature.   The district signed the amended judgment on June 30, 2022,

providing, in pertinent part, as follows:

                   IT    IS   HERESY        ORDERED,        ADJUDGED,           AND
           DECREED that there be judgment in favor of DEFENDANT and
           against PLAINTIFF sustaining Thomas Branighan's Peremptory
           Exception of Res Judicata, Peremptory Exception of No Cause of
       Action, and Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action, filed by
           DEFENDANT, THOMAS BRANIGHAN, on or about August 4,
           2021.

                   IT    IS   FURTHER       ORDERED,        ADJUDGED,           AND
           DECREED that there be judgment in favor of DEFENDANT and
           against PLAINTIFF awarding DEFENDANT attorney fees in the
           amount of $1,   500. 00.

                   IT    IS   FURTHER       ORDERED,        ADJUDGED,           AND
           DECREED that there be judgment in favor of DEFENDANT and
           against PLAINTIFF dismissing Motion to Annul Act of Conveyance
           Pursuant to Civil Code Article 2036 with Injunctive Relief and
           Incorporated Memorandum in Support, filed by PLAINTIFF,
           TCHEFUNCTE HARBOUR ASSOCIATION, INC.,                      on   or   about

           October 13, 2021 as moot.

                   IT    IS   FURTHER       ORDERED,        ADJUDGED,           AND
           DECREED that this judgment is a final judgment.
      Before the appellate record was supplemented with these documents on July

20, 2022, this court issued an interim order on July 5, 2022, remanding the matter

to the district court with instructions to sign an amended judgment correcting the

deficiencies noted in the May 6, 2022 Show Cause Order. The July 5, 2022 order

provided as follows:

             A    valid judgment    must be         precise,   definite,   and   certain.

      D' Luca v. Kirkland, 2020- 0713,             2020- 0714 ( La.    App.      1st Cir.
      2119121),   321 So3d 411, 413.       Moreover, 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. Id. at 413- 14. These
      determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment
      without references to other documents in the record, such as pleadings
      and reasons for judgment. Id. at 414.          As noted in this court's May 6,
      2022 Rule to Show Cause Order, "[ t] he November 16, 2021 judgment
      at issue merely enters judgment granting the exceptions of res
      judicata, no cause of action, and no right of action, but lacks decretal
      language disposing of and/ or dismissing the plaintiffs claims." See
      Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005- 0337 ( La. App.
      1 st Cir. 3124106), 934 So. 2d 66.

           Accordingly, we . REMAND THIS MATTER FOR THE
      LIMITED PURPOSE of instructing the trial court to sign an
      amended judgment that corrects the foregoing deficiencies and
      complies with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1918, see La. Code Civ. P. arts.
      1918 ( A), 1951, and 2088 ( A)( 12),        as amended by 2021 La. Acts No.
      259.

      The rule to show cause was thereafter referred to the merits of the appeal.

Upon review of the June 30, 2022 amended judgment, this court found the

judgment still lacking in decretal language.             Despite further language in the

judgment identifying the parties and the exceptions filed, including the statement

that the " judgment is a final judgment," the amended judgment remained unclear as

to whether all the claims asserted in the petition for monies due by THA against

Mr. Branighan were not dismissed.

      Accordingly, this court issued a second interim order on January 12, 2023,

again noting the deficiencies and remanding the matter for the district court to sign

another amended judgment.      Similar to the July 5, 2022 interim order, this court's

                                              7
January 12, 2023 order was very detailed as to what was required for this court's

jurisdiction to attach:

              As noted in this court's July 5, 2022 interim order, the initial
           November 16, 2021 judgment at issue merely enters judgment

       granting the exceptions of res judicata, no cause of action, and no
       right of action, but lacks decretal language disposing of and/ or

       dismissing the plaintiffs claims." See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim
       Baptist Church, 2005- 0337 (             La. App.   1st Cir. 3/ 24106), 934 So. 2d
       66.        Similarly, the amended judgment entered by the trial court on
       June 30, 2022 grants the referenced exceptions, but does not dispose
       of and/ or dismiss the plaintiff's claims.           Cf. Robertson v. Sun Life
       Financial, 2009- 2275 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 6111/ 10),              40 So. 3d 507, 510
           wherein this court' s      appellate jurisdiction          attached to review        a
       judgment that granted an "           exception      of    no    cause    of   action   and

       dismissed with prejudice [          plaintiffs]     claims     against [   defendant]"
           emphasis added])       and Misita v. St. Tammany Parish Government,
       2018- 1595 ( La.          App. 1st Cir. 9111119), 286 So. 3d 440, 442, writ
       denied, 2019- 01877 ( La. 1/ 28/ 20), 291             So. 3d 1060 ( wherein this
       court' s appellate jurisdiction attached to review a judgment that
       sustained the defendant' s " exception of no cause of action and
       dismissed plaintiffs'         petition    with   prejudice" [    Emphasis added])."
       Although the amended judgment reflects that the " judgment is a final
       judgment," it does not contain decretal language to indicate whether
       any or all of the plaintiffs claims are dismissed.

            Accordingly, we REMAND THIS MATTER FOR THE
       LIMITED PURPOSE of requesting that the trial court, in accordance
       with Article 1951, issue an amended judgment that specifically

       indicates if any or all of the plaintiffs claims are dismissed and
       complies with La. Code Civ. P. art. 1918, see La. Code Civ. P. arts.
       1918( A), 1951, and 2088 ( A)( 12),          as amended by 2021 La. Acts No.
       259.

       On January 25, 2023, the district court signed a second amended judgment,

which consists solely of the following sentence: " In Accordance with the Interim

Order of January 12, 2023, in Case Number 2022 CA 0404, this Court hereby

amends its judgment of July 5, 2022 to include the decretal language ' dismissing

all   of    the    plaintiff's   claims   with    prejudice."'        The      appellate   record   was

supplemented with this judgment on January 31, 2022.

       A valid, appealable, final judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. It

must contain appropriate 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

                                                    8
relief that is granted or denied.         Advanced Leveling &           Concrete Solutions v.

Lathan Company, Inc.,           2017- 1250 (   La. App. 1 Cir. 12120118),       268 So. 3d 1044,

1046.    These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment

without reference to other documents in the record. Id.

         The district court' s January 25, 2023 amended judgment is clearly not a

valid,   appealable,      final judgment.      As noted, the judgment references a prior

judgment of July 5,          2022"   and purports to amend same by including decretal

language "   dismissing all of the plaintiffs claims with prejudice."            However, there

is no July 5, 2022 district court judgment in the record before us.              Moreover, even

if there was such a judgment, the January 25, 2023 amended judgment would still

not be a valid, appealable, final judgment as it lacks sufficient decretal language,

ascertainable from the four corners of the judgment.                 See Rivault v. America

Homeland, LLC, 2019- 1468 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9121120), 314 So. 3d 73, 77.                     In the

absence of appropriate decretal language,             clearly stating 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,           the January 25, 2023 amended judgment is

defective and cannot be considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Thus,

we are constrained to find that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review this

matter, and the appeal must be dismissed.'            See Advanced Leveling &            Concrete

 We recognize that this court has discretion to convert an appeal of a non -appealable judgment

to an application for supervisory writs. See Stelluto v. Stelluto, 2005- 0074 ( La. 6/ 29/ 05), 914
So. 2d 34, 39.   Nonetheless, we note that an appellate court will generally refrain from the
exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when an adequate remedy exists by appeal, particularly
when an adequate remedy by appeal will exist upon the entry of the requisite precise, definite,
and certain decretal language necessary for appellate review. See Simon v. Ferguson, 2018-
0826 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 28119), 274 So. 3d 10, 14. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our
discretion to convert this appeal of a judgment that is not final for lack of decretal language to an
application for supervisory writs. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015- 0393 ( La.
App. 1 Cir. 12123/ 15),   2015 WL 9435285, * 4 ( unpublished).

                                                  9
Solutions, 268 So. 3d at 1046- 1047. {"[   I] n the absence of a valid final judgment

this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the appeal should be dismissed.")

                                     DECREE

      For the above reasons,     we dismiss the appeal of the January 25,       2023

amended judgment.      We further dismiss the answer to the appeal filed by the

defendant, Thomas Branighan, because it is based on a nonappealable judgment.

We decline to assess costs pending the rendition of a final judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED; ANSWER TO APPEAL DISMISSED.

                                           10