Stephanie Watkins Wife of/and Greylin Watkins VS Panco, Inc., Cora K. Pania, Wife of/and Elmo Pania, Jr., Charles Richardson d/b/a Rehab Construction, Henry Louis Thurman, Jr., Hunt Thurman Associates, City of Plaquemine, Louisiana State Licensing Board for Contractors, The ABC Insurance Company, The DE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 0307 STEPHANIE WATKINS wife ofand GREYLIN WATKINS VERSUS PANCO INC CORA K PANIA wife ofand ELMO PANIA JR CHARLES RICHARDSON d a REHAB CONSTRUCTION b HENRY LOUIS THURMAN JR HUNT THURMAN ASSOCIATES CITY OF PLAQUEMINE LOUISIANA STATE LICENSING BOARD OF CONTRACTORS THE ABC INSURANCE COMPANY THE DEF INSURANCE COMPANY THE GHI INSURANCE COMPANY THE JKL INSURANCE COMPANY THE MNO INSURANCE COMPANY THE PQR INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE XYZ INSURANCE COMPANY Judgment Rendered September 10 2010 On Appeal from the 19th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Trial Court No C505870 The Honorable Wilson Fields Judge Presiding Stephanie Watkins Baton Rouge LA PlaintiffAppellant In Proper Person Dele A Adebamiji Baton Rouge LA Attorney for PlaintiffsAppellants Stephanie Watkins and Greylin Watkins Shannon Howard Eldridge Attorney for DefendantsAppellees Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s New Orleans LA London Mitchell J Hoffman Attorneys for Defendant Appellee James T Busenlener PANCO Inc New Orleans LA Lon E Roberson Attorney for Defendant Appellee Baton Rouge LA Charles Richardson d a Rehab b Construction Edselle K Cunningham Baton Rouge LA Attorney for DefendantsAppellees Henry Louis Thurman Jr and Hunt Thunman Paul J McMahon III New Orleans LA Assoc Attorney for Defendant Appellee State of Louisiana Licensing Board for Contractors BEFORE CARTER C GAIDRY AND WELCH JJ J 2 CARTER C J Stephanie and Greylin Watkins filed this suit for damages related to the alleged faulty construction of their home in Plaquemine Louisiana Included as a defendant were Certain Underwriters at Lloyd London who s issued a commercial general liability policy to PANCO Inc another defendant s Lloyd moved for summary judgment and also filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription based on application of the New Home Warranty Act motion for summary judgment The trial court denied the The trial court overruled the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription as to the structural mold theory but maintained the objection as to all other issues On application by Lloyd this court granted supervisory writs s reversed the trial court judgment and entered judgment in their favor s sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of prescription and dismissing the remaining claims based on the mold theory Watkins v Panco Inc 08 2285 La App 1 Cir 3 unpublished writ action 09 9 Thereafter on October 26 2009 the trial court entered a judgment purporting to formalize the action taken by this court by granting defendants Exception of Prescription and Dismissing plaintiffs suit with prejudice It is from the October 26 2009 judgment that plaintiffs have appealed The appellees Lloyd PANCO Inc Cora K Pania and Elmo s Pania Jr collectively Lloyd s have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal of the October 26 2009 judgment for lack ofjurisdiction MOTION TO DISMISS A judgment is the determination of the rights of the parties in an action and may award any relief to which the parties are entitled 3 A judgment that determines the merits of a case in whole or in part is a final judgment LSA C art 1841 P A judgment of an appellate court that decides the merits of the case is a final judgment whether that judgment was reached pursuant to the appellate s court appellate or supervisory jurisdiction Tolis v Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University 95 1529 La 10 660 So 1206 1206 95 16 2d Once a final judgment acquires the authority of the thing adjudged which occurs if no timely direct review is sought or if the judgment is confirmed on further review no court has jurisdiction to modify revise or reverse the judgment LSAR S 4231 13 Tolis 660 So at 120607 2d This court writ action dismissed the claims against Lloyd for s s damages related to mold which were the only claims not dismissed by the trial court original judgment s Accordingly the writ action was a final judgment modification of which is barred by any court since direct review was not sought See Tolis 660 So at 1207 Having the trial court enter a 2d subsequent judgment confirming the judgment rendered by this court did not create new appeal delays and does not confer on this court the jurisdiction to reconsider the merits of the issue CONCLUSION Considering the foregoing the motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and this appeal is dismissed MOTION GRANTED APPEAL DISMISSED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
