Edna R. Horrell VS Gerardo R. Barrios and Lisa C. Matthews
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST C RCUI NUMBER 2012 CE1205 EDNA R HORRELL VERSUS 1 G GERARDO R BARRIOS AND LISA C MATTHEWS T f Judgment Rendered SEP 2 6 2013 Appealed from the Second Twenty Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St Tammany State of Louisiana Suit Number 2005 12893 Honorable Raymond S Childress Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Walter J Horrell Covington Edna R Honell LA Kathleen D Lambert Counsel far Defendants Appellees Maria l O Byrne Gerardo Banios Stephenson Lisa C Matthews New Orleans LA BEFORE PARRO GUIDRY AND DRAKE JJ GUIDRY J Plaintiff Edna R Honell appeals from a judgment of the Twenty Second Judicial District Court 22nd 7DC granting a motion for partial summary judgment in favor of defendants Lisa C Matthews and Gerardo R Barrios and dismissing her claim for injunctive relief with prejudice For the reasons that follow we 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 for 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 amount 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 death s In 1998 Ms Matthews filed a detailed descriprive list wherein she listed the Covington property as an asset of Edward Horrell succession s Thereafter following the 22nd JDC invalidation of a donation of the Covington 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amended the descriptive list to claim the household furnishings located See Horrell v Matthews 10 La App lst Cir 5 unpublished opinion writ denied 1694 ll 6 1848 ll La 11 75 So 3d 925 Horrell v Barrios 09 La App lst Cir 7 11 4 2199 10 21 unpublished opinion Matthews v Horrell 06 La App lst Cir 11 977 So 2d 62 1973 07 7 Horrell v Matthews 06 La App lst Cir 8 unpublished opinion Horrell v 1838 07 15 Horrell 99 La App lst Cix 10 808 So 2d 363 writ denied O1 La 12 1093 00 6 2546 O1 7 803 So 2d 971 Succession of Horrell 11 La App 4th Cir 4 102 So 3d 139 1574 12 11 5uccession of Honell 11 La App 4th Cir 11 79 So 3d 1162 writ denied 12 0194 30 0180 La 3 85 So 3d 96 Succession of Horrell 95 La App 4th Cir 9 12 23 1598 96 11 680 So 2d 725 writ denied 96 La 1 687 So 2d 403 2841 97 31 2 in the house and outbuildings on the Covington property as disputed assets of Edward Horrell succession Ciare Horrell and the other heirs to the succession s filed a motion to tra the detailed descriptive list in 2002 Following a hearing erse on the traversal the civil district court far the parish of Orleans issued a judgment on November 6 2002 finding in particular that tare household furnishings here situated in Covington Louisiana at the current residence of Walter 7 Horrell that belong to the succession including but not limited to a cabinet sofa and four chairs and ordering Ms Matthews to establish the 1993 value of the household fumishings 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 property on an amended descriptive list Thereafter Gerardo Barrios was appointed by the Orleans Parish civil district court as the notary public charged with the duty of conducting an inventory 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 conduct an inventory of the movables at the Covington properiy On June 20 2005 Edna Horrell Mrs Horrell filed a pro se action for damages declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction in the 22nd JDC naming Ms Matthews and Mr Barrios as defendants and asserting that they were violating her rights by inventorying all movables at the Covington property which included movables that she and not the succession owned In her petition Mrs Horrell sought a judgment decreeing that she is the 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 property 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 Honell 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 aetion l Horrell sought review of the s irs 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 2Qll 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 ar 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 Honell peaceable possession of the s properties Following a hearing the 22nd 7DC granted the defendants motion for partial summary judgment as it pertained to Mrs Horrell srequest 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 suminary judgment as to Mrs Horrell tort claims could certainly be revisited s 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 S Thereafter the 22nd JDC signed judgmentc in conformity with its oral rulings expressly finding that there was no just reason far delay and designating the judgments as final appealable judgments pupsuant to La C art 1915 Mrs P Honell now appeals from the 22nd JL jlx gra the defendants s C igment nting motion for partial summary judgme and d t iriher rer for injunctive mis uest relief with prejudice DISCUSSION Before the merits of Mrs Horrell 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 1 st Cir 4 867 0716 La 03 30 Sa 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 Wkiite 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 Safety and Corrections 11 1282 p 6 App lst Cir 10 103 So 3d 1118 1123 writ denied 12 La 12 24 2516 La 1 105 So 3d 59 13 23 In order 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 Yhe appellate court is required to conduct a de novo determination of whether the designation was proper utilizing the factors set forth in R Messinger Inc v Rosenblum 04 pp 13 La J 1664 14 OS 2 3 894 So 2d 1113 1122 23 Those factors include l the relationship 6 between the adjudicated and the unadjudicated claims 2 the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the district court 3 the possibility that the reviewing court might be obligated to consider the same issue a second time and 4 miscellaneous facts such as delay economic or solvency considerations shortening the time of trial frivolity of competing claims expense and the like R Messinger Inc 04 at p 14 J 1664 894 So 2d at 1122 23 Based on our de novo review of the recard 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 a permanent injunction 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 Mrs Horrell request far injunctive relief which seeks to enjoin the defendants s from harassing her or disturbing her peaceable possession ofher movables making any claims of ownership regarding her movables or examining inventorying appraising or interfering with her movables is inextricably linked to her claim that she owns the movables in question Therefore if the district court subsequently determines that she in fact is not the owner of the movables at the Covington property then any review by this court ofthe motion for partial summary judgment as to the dismissal of her request for injunctive relief would be rendered moot Therefore we fmd that the 22nd JDC designation of the judgment which granted s the defendants motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Mrs HorrelPs request for injunctive relief as a final judgment was improper Moreover we decline to convert this matter to an application for supervisory writs as the granting of the writ application will not terminate the litigation at this 7 time and the parties ha an adequate remedy by review on appeal after a final e judgment See Herlitz Construction Companv Inc v Hotel Investars of New Iberia Inc 396 So 2d 878 La 1981 Best Fishing v Rancatare 96 p Inc 2254 La ll App lst Cir 12 706 So 2d 161 156 97 29 67 CONCLL SION For the foregoing reasons we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction All costs of this appeal are assessed to Edna Horrell APPEAL DISMISSED 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.
