Edna R. Horrell VS Gerardo R. Barrios and Lisa C. Matthews

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LUUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NLJMBER 2012 CA 2054 d EDNA R HORRELL n I n VERSUS GERARDO R BARRIOS AND LISA C MATTHEWS Judgment Rendered Appealed from the Second Twenty Judicial District EP 2 6 2013 Court i In and for the Parish of St Tammany State o f Louisiana Suit Number 2005 12893 Honorable Raymond S Childress Presiding Walter Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant J Horrell Covington Edna R Horrell LA Kathleen D Lambert Counsel for Defendants Appellees Maria lO Stephenson Byrne Gerardo Barrios Lisa C Matthews New Orleans LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND DRAKE JJ GUIDRY J Plaintiff Edna R Horrell appeals a judgment of the Twenty Judicial Second District Court 22nd JDC which granted a motio fc partial summary jadgment nr in favor of defendants Lisa Mattheyvs And Gerardo R Barrios and dismissed her tort claims against them witl prejadic 1 the reasons that foll we e ar ow dismiss the appeal FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Edward A Horrell Sr died on July 9 1993 survived by his wife Clare and five adult children Edna Horrell is the wife of Walter J Horrell Edward oldest s son The succession of Edward Horrell Sr has been pending in the civil district court far the parish of Orleans since 1993 and has resulted in substantial litigation between the heirs and the provisional administratrix Lisa Matthews The instant case arises from a dispute regarding certain movable and immovable property located in Covington Louisiana At the time of his death Edward Horrell owned a substantial airiount of separate property including a tract located on 19th Street in Covington Walter and Edna Horrell have occupied the residence on this tract since before Edward Horrell sdeath In 1998 Ms Matthews filed a detailed desoriptive list wherein she listed the Covington propert as an asset of Edward s Horrell succession Thereafter following the 22nd JDC invalidation of a donation of the CQVington property to s Walter Horrell which invalidation was affirmed by this court on appeal Ms Matthews amended the descriptive list to claim the household furnishings located See Horrell v Matthews 10 La App lst Cir 5 unpublished opinion writ denied 1694 ll 6 1848 11 La 11 75 So 3d 925 Horrell v Barcios 09 La App lst Cic 7 11 4 2199 10 21 unpublished oginion Matthews v Hanell 06 La App lst Cir 11 977 So 2d 62 1973 07 7 Horrell v Ivlattriews 06 La e lst Cir 8 unpublished opinionj Horrell v 1838 pp 07 15 Horrell 99 La App lst Cir 10 808 So 2d 363 vrit denied 01 La 12 1093 00 6 2546 01 7 803 So 2d 971 Suceession of Horrell 11 La App 4th Cir 4 102 So 3d 139 1574 12 ll Succession of Horrell I1 La App 4zh Cir 11 9 So 3d l 1f writ denied 12 0194 30 2 0180 La 3 SS So 3d 96 Succession of Horrell 95 La App 4th Cir 9 23i12 1598 11196 680 So 2d i25 writ denied 96 La 1 687 So 2d 403 2841 97 31 2 in the house and outbuildings on ttie Covin property as disp assets of tor rted Edward Horrell succession lar orrell and ttze vther heirs to the succession s filed a motion to traverse the ddescriptiv lnst an 2002 Fa hearing tailzd ollowing on the traversai the civil disLric c for the arish c Orl issued a t aezre f ans nent jud on Navembex 6 2002 finaing in particular thai t are household fizrnishings here situated in Covington Louisiana at the uurrent residence of Walter J Horrell that belong to the succession including but not limited to a cabinet sofa and four chairs and ardering Ms Matthews to establish the 1993 value of the household furnishings situated in Covington Louisiana that were inherited by Edward Horrell and which were owned by him at the time of his death including but not limited to a cabinet sofa and four chairs with the value thereof to be listed as separate progerty on an amended descriptive list Thereafter Gerardo Barrios was appointed by the Orleans Parish civil district court as the notary public charged with th duty of conducting an ir e ventory of the movable property located in Covington Due to Walter and Edna Horrell s resistance to allowing the inventory Ms Matthews filed a motion to compel inventory and appraisal which was granted However despite the civil district s court order Mr Barrios was still unable to conduc an inventory of xhe movables t at the Covington property On June 20 2005 Edna Horrell Mrs Horrell filed a pro se aation for darnages declaratory judgment and a perman injunction ix the 22nd 3DC nt naming Ms Matthews and Mr Barrios as defendants and assertrng rhat they were violating her rights by inventorying all movables at the Covin pr which ton perty included iovables that she and not the succession owned In her petition Mrs Horrell sought a judgment decreeing that she is trie owner of all the corporeal movables located in her home or on the premises on which her home is located awarding reasonable compensation for damages caused by the defendants and 3 enjoining defendants from harassing her or disturbing her peaceable possession of her corporeal movables in any way making any claim of ownership of the corporeal movables or examining inventorying or appraising her corporeal movables Thereafter the defendants filed exceptions raising the objections of improper venue lack of subject matter jurisdiction res judicata lis pendens vagueness and ambiguity nonconformity with La C art 891 failure to join a P party and no cause of action Mrs Horrell subsequently filed a supplemental and amending petition acknowledging that she had forbidden Mr Barrios from entering onto the Covington property and asserting that Mr Barrios trespassed on her property and that the actions of the defendant are disturbing her peaceable possession of the immovable properiy at issue Thereafter the defendants reurged their exceptions Because Mr Barrios still had been unable to obtain an inventory of the movables at the Covington property Ms Matthews filed a motion for contempt Following a hearing on the motion the Orleans Parish civil district court signed a judgment granting the motion and ordering that the inventory and appraisal of the movable property of Edward Horrell located in Covington take place on July 18 2007 In accordance with the court orders Mr Barrios and two appraisers took s an inventory of all the movable property located at the Covington property and Mr Barrios thereafter filed a proces verbal of the inventory In May 2009 Ms Matthews filed a third amended descriptive list including the items inventoried in Covington On May 26 2009 Mrs Horrell filed a second supplemental and amending petition asserting that Mr Barrios had invaded her home and photographed and touched movables belonging to her On June 4 2009 the 22nd JDC held a hearing on the exceptions previously asserted by the defendants and thereafter signed a judgment sustaining the 4 exceptions raising the objections of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lis pendens and dismissing Mrs Horrell action Mrs Horrell sought review of the s 22nd JDC judgment and in an unpublished opinion this court reversed that s judgment and remanded the matter to the 22nd JDC for further proceedings Thereafter on August 23 2011 the defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting dismissal of Mrs Horrell claims seeking an s injunction prohibiting the defendants from inventorying and appraising the movable property located on or in structures located on the Covington property seeking an injunction prohibiting the defendants from entering or coming onto the immovable property located in Covington and seeking damages from the defendants individually or in their official capacities as the court appointed administratrix and notary for any alleged tort including but not limited to any alleged invasion and disturbance of Mrs Horrell peaceable possession of the s properties Following a hearing the 22nd JDC granted the defendants motion for partial summary judgment as it pertained to the request by Mrs Honell for injunctive relief but denied the motion for partial summary judgment as it pertained to her tort claims However the 22nd JDC specifically noted that the suminaryjudgment as to Mrs Horrell stort claims could certainly be revisited On May 21 2012 the defendants filed another motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of Mrs Horrell claims against the defendants s individually and in their official capacities as the court administratrix appointed and notary for any alleged tort including but not limited to any alleged invasion and disturbance of Mrs Horrell peaceable possession of the properties s Following a hearing the 22nd JDC granted the defendants motion Thereafter the 22nd JDC signed judgments in conformity with its oral rulings expressly finding that there was no just reason for delay and designating 5 the judgments as final appealable judgments pursuant to La C art 1915 P Mrs Horrell now appeals the 22nd JDC judgment granting the defendants s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissing her tort claims with prejudice DISCUSSION Before the merits of Mrs Horreli arguments can be addressed we must s first determine whether this court has appellate jurisdiction over the partial summary judgment This court has a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte even when the parties do not raise the issue Motorola Inc v Associated Indemnity Corporation 02 p 4 App lst Cir 4 867 0716 La 03 30 So 2d 715 717 Although the trial court designated the partial judgment as being a final judgment under La C art 1915 that designation is not P B determinative of this court jurisdiction Van ex rel White v Davis 00 p 2 s 0206 La App lst Cir 2 808 So 2d 478 480 This court must still ascertain O1 16 whether it has appellate jurisdiction to review the partial judgment from which the appeal was taken See Code v Department of Public Safetv and Corrections 11 1282 p 6 App lst Cir 10 103 So 3d 1118 ll23 writ denied 12 La 12 24 2516 La 1 105 So 3d 59 13 23 In arder to assist this court in our review of designated final judgments the trial court should give explicit reasons either oral or written for its determination that there is no just reason for delay In those cases where a trial court does not provide reasons such as the instant matter the appellate court is required to conduct a de novo determination of whether the designation was proper utilizing the factors set forth in R Messin J erInc v Rosenblum 04 pp 13 La 1664 14 OS 2 3 894 So 2d 1113 1122 Those factors include 1 the relationship 23 z VJe note that the trial court signed two identical judgments one dated August 9 2012 and one dated August 13 2012 granting defendants motion for partial summary judgment and dismissing all of Mrs Horrell stort claims with prejudice 6 between the adjudicated and tl unadaudicated s 2 the possibility that the e rxns la need for review might or migh4 nc be nooted Uy future developments in the t district court 3 the possibi that the review court r be obligated to ity ng light consider the same Issue seccand time and 4 ir facts such as delay laneous scel mic econc or solvency carisiderations hort the time of trial fri of nin olity competing claincis ex and ihe dike R Iviessinegr In 0 at p 14 pznse J c 1664 894 So 2d at ll22 23 Based on our de novo review of the record we conclude that the designation by the 22nd JDC was inappropriate At the heart of this litigation is the ownership of certain movable property at the Covington address In addition to her request for injunctive relief and damages Mrs Horrell also filed a petition for declaratory judgment requesting that the court declare her to be the owner of all of the movables located in her home or on the premises on which her home is located This request for declaratory relief as of this date is still pending in the 22nd JDC Because Mrs Horrell claims for damages which she has labeled as malicious s inventorying are inextricably linked to her claim that she oums the movables in question if the 22nd 7DC subsequeritly determines tlhat she in fact is not the owner of the movables at the Covington property then any review by this court of the motion for partial summary audgment as to the dismissal of her tort claims would be rendered moot Therefare we find that the 22nd JDC designation of s the judgment which granted the defendants motion far partial summary judgment and dismissed Mrs Horrell tort claims as adgment was improper s nal Moreover we decline to convert this matter tc an application far supervisory rits w as the granting of the writ application will not terminate the litigaticn at this time and the parties have an adequate remedy by review on appeal a a final ter judgment See Her1 Construction Company Inc v Hotel Inv f New itz stors 7 Iberia Ine 396 Sa 2d 878 La Best F v96 p l isYai Rancatore 2254 Inc 11 La App lst Cir 12 706 Sa 2d 161 1F 97 29 G7 6 SION CONCLL For the foregoing reasons w dismiss the a fot Iack of appellate peal jurisdiction All costs af this agpew a ass to hdna Horrell re s c APPEAL llISMISSETI 8

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.