Sherie Landry Wife of/and Raymond C. Burkart, Jr. VS Elaine L. Williamson Wife of/and James R. Williamson, William L. Dunford, Rhonda Hemelt Wife of/and Christopher J. Aubert, Group Integrity, L.L.C. d/b/a Keller Williams Realty, Jackie E. Staley, Jean Brown, William Stone Hatchett, III, John J. Henry, Joh

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2013 CA 0928 SHERIE LANDRY WIFE OF/ AND RAYMOND C. BURKART, JR. VERSUS ELAINE L. WILLIAMSON WIFE OF/ AND JAMES R. WILLIAMSON; WILLIAM L. DUNFORD; RHONDA HEMELT WIFE OF/ AND CHRISTOPHER J. AUBERT; GROUP INTEGRITY, L.L.C. d/ b/ a KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY; JACKIE E. STALEY-, JEAN BROWN; WILLIAM STONE HATCHETT, III; JOHN J. HENRY; JOHN J. HENRY & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. d/b/ a HATCHETT INSPECTION SERVICES, L.L.0 d/b/ a HENRY & HATCHETT INSPECTION SERVICES Judgment Rendered: APR 2 5 2014 Appealed from the Twenty- Second Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Suit Number 2003- 13648 Honorable William J. Knight, Presiding Raymond C. Burk- rt, Jr. a Plaintiff/. ppellant A Covington, LA Pro Se Paul A. Lea, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Covington, LA Sherie Landry Howard Marc Spector Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Dallas, TX Elaine L. Williamson and James R. Williamson Gus A. Fritchie, III Counsel. for Defendants/ Appellees Edward W. Trapoln Jackie E. Staley, Jean Brown, Group Keller L. L. C. d/ b/ a Integrity, Williams Realty New Orleans, LA John P. Wolff, III Counsel for Defendants/ Appellees Christopher K. Jones Christopher J. Aubert, Rhonda H. Baton Rouge, LA Aubert, and Great Northern Insurance Company Jay Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Russell Sever Scottsdale Insurance Company Maria N. Rabieh Karl H. Schmid Jonathan B. Womack New Orleans, LA William J. Jones, Jr. Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Howard R. Fussell Covington, LA LCV Partnership, Crowne Colony Builders, Inc., Viking Land, Inc., and Lee Road Development Company William L. Dunford Defendant/Appellee Jonestown, TX Pro Se Leland R. Galaspy BEFORE: PARRO, GUIDRY, AND DRAKE, JJ. 2 GUIDRY, J. Sherie Landry and Raymond Burkart, Jr. ( the Burkarts), appeal from a trial court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of defendant, Scottsdale Insurance Company ( Scottsdale). For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 28, 2002, the Burkarts purchased a home located at 806 Heather Hollow in Highlands Subdivision in Covington, Louisiana, from Elaine and James Williamson. On or about September 26, 2002, water started leaking into the home during periods of rainfall. Consequently, on August 1, 2003, the Burkarts filed a petition in redhibition and for damages, naming as defendants the Williamsons; all prior homeowners in the chain of title, including Rhonda Hemelt wife of/and Christopher Aubert; unidentified insurance companies; and realtors. The Auberts originally purchased the home at issue from the contractors, LCV Partnership. The sole partners of LCV consisted of Lee Road Development Company, Crowne Colony Builders, Inc., and Viking Land, Inc. After retaining a civil engineer to examine the home in 2004, the Burkarts discovered that the exterior walls of the home were not constructed with a secondary water barrier, and that this improper method of construction caused the widespread water intrusion throughout the Burkarts' home. Thereafter, the Burkarts filed a first supplemental and amending petition on August 2, 2005, naming LCV and its individual partners and their respective insurers as defendants and asserting claims against them for negligence, negligent supervision, respondeat superior, and claims under the Louisiana New Home Warranty Act and La. C.C. art. 2545. By way of a second supplemental and amending petition filed on April 11, 2008, the Burkarts substituted Scottsdale as the insurer of Crowne Colony Builders, Inc. 3 Thereafter, on November 5, 2012. Scottsdale filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that it is undisputed that Scottsdale did not insure Crowne Colony Builders, Inc. or any other defendant at the time that the Burkarts' alleged property damage and/or bodily injury- occurred. As such, Scottsdale asserted that it does not provide coverage for the Burkarts' claims. Scottsdale also filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the Burkarts' claims asserted under La. C.C. art. 2545 for Crowne Colony Builders, Inc.' s alleged failure to disclose defects in their home and filed peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and peremptio. Following a hearing on Scottsdale' s motions and exceptions, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Scottsdale, granting its motion for summary judgment regarding trigger of coverage and finding the remaining motion for partial summary judgment and exceptions moot. The Burkarts now appeal from the trial court' s judgment. DISCUSSION Appellate courts have the duty to determine, sua sponte, whether their subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Gaten v. Tangipahoa Parish School System, 11- 1133, p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 23/ 12), 91 So. 3d 1073, 1074. Under Louisiana law, a final judgment is one that determines the merits of a controversy, in whole or in part. La. C. C. P. art. 1841. A final judgment must be identified as such by appropriate language. La. C.C.P. art. 1918. A valid judgment must be precise, definite. and certain. Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 02- 0045, p. 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/20102), 836 So. 2d 364, 365. 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. Gaten, 111133 at p. 3, 91 So. 3d at 1074. These determinations should be evident from the 4 language of the judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 02- 0045 at p. 3, 836 So. 2d at 366.. In the instant case, this court issued a rule to show cause ordering the parties to show by briefs why the appeal in this case should not be dismissed for having been taken from a judgment la4king the appropriate decretal language disposing of and/or dismissing the claims of the plaintiffs. See, La. C.C.P. arts. 1911 and 1918; see also Johnson v Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 05- 0337, pp. 2- 3 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 3/ 24/ 06), 934 So. 2d 66, 67. Scottsdale does not dispute that, in accordance with the jurisprudence, the judgment at issue is defective, because it fails to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it. The Burkarts, however, contend that the effect of the judgment is to dismiss their claims against Scottsdale, and therefore, this court should consider the appeal. Alternatively, the Burkarts assert that this court should consider the appeal under its supervisory jurisdiction. As stated previously, a judgment cannot require reference to extrinsic documents or pleadings in order to discern the court' s ruling. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 01- 0809, pp. 11- 12 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 10/ 02), 818 So. 2d 906, 913. In the instant case, though Scottsdale sought dismissal of the Burkarts' claims against it in filing its motion for summary judgment, the judgment itself does not state that it is granting the requested relief to Scottsdale. Because this information, which is necessary for a determination of whether a final, appealable judgment has been rendered in this case, cannot be ascertained without referring to other pleadings in the record, the judgment is ambiguous and lacks appropriate decretal language. See Thomas v. Lafayette Parish School System, 1391, p. 2 ( La. App. 3rd Cir: 3/ 6/ 13), 128 So. 3d 1055, 1056. In the absence of decretal language, the judgment is defective and cannot be considered a final judgment. Gaten, 11- 1133 at p. 4, 91 So. 3d at 1074. In the absence of a final 5 judgment, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review this matter. Gaten, 11- 1133 at p. 4, 91 So. 3d at 1074. Further, we are unable to exercise our discretion to convert the Burkarts' appeal to an application for supervisory writs and consider the merits of the appeal under our supervisory jurisdiction, because the Burkarts failed to file their motion for appeal within the 30- day delay applicable to supervisory writs contained in Uniform Rules-- Court of Appeal, Rule 4- 3. See Wooley v. Amcare Health Plans of Louisiana, Inc., 05- 2025, p. 11 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 10/ 25/ 06), 944 So. 2d 668, 674 n.4. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the trial court' s judgment granting Scottsdale' s motion for summary judgment is dismissed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Sherie Landry and Raymond Burkart, Jr. APPEAL DISMISSED. 6

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.