Willie Zanders VS Shelvey Davis, Bianca Wesley-Davis, Robert Davis and Crystal Davis
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2018 CA 0963 WILLIE ZANDERS VERSUS SHELVEY DAVIS, BIANCA WESLEY-DAVIS, ROBERT DAVIS AND CRYSTAL DAVIS Judgment Rendered: DEC 2 1 2018 Appealed from the 18' Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville, Louisiana Trial Court Number 76, 850 Honorable Alvin Batiste, Jr., Judge Sharah Harris -Wallace Attorney for Appellant Plaquemine, LA Plaintiff — Willie Zanders Allen J. Myles Attorney for Appellees Defendants —Shelvey Davis, Robert Davis, Bianca -Wesley Davis Plaquemine, LA BEFORE: lJ C PETTIGREW, WELCH, AND CHUTZ, JJ. WELCH, J. In this suit on a promissory note, Willie Zanders appeals a judgment of the trial court awarding him the sum of $12, 055. 00, plus attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the principal and interest and all court costs. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 26, 2017, Willie Zanders filed a suit on promissory notes against the defendants, Shelvey Davis, Bianca Wesley -Davis, Robert Davis, and Crystal Davis. Therein, Willie Zanders alleged that the defendants were indebted to him in the total sum of $13, 450. 00, together with 12% interest thereon from April 7, 2017, until paid, costs of this suit, and attorney fees in the amount of 33 1/ 3% principal and interest. of the More specifically, Willie Zanders alleged that he was the holder of several promissory notes— one in the principal amount of $12, 055. 00 the other in the principal amount of $2, 000. 00— March 20, 2017, March 21, executed by the defendants on 2017, and March 23, 2017 respectively, which were made payable to Willie Zanders, with maturity until paid in full. and 12% per annum interest thereon from Willie Zanders also alleged that no amounts had been paid on the note or since the first payment on the note became due on April 7, 2017. Willie Zanders further alleged that the note provided that in the event it was necessary to employ an attorney to enforce collection, the maker agreed to pay attorney fees in the amount of " 33% principal and interest." of the amount then due[,] which includes Attached to Willie Zanders' petition was a promissory note executed by Shelvey Davis on March 21, 2017, in the principal amount of 2, 000. 00, a promissory note executed by Shelvey Davis on March 21, 2017, in the principal amount of $ 12, 055. 00, as well as bail bond indemnitor' s promises 2 executed by Shelvey Davis, Robert Davis, and Bianca Wesley -Davis, on March 20, 2017, and by Shelvey Davis on March 23, 2017. 1 On May 9, 2017, Bianca Wesley -Davis, an answer was filed by the defendants Shelvey Davis, Robert Davis, allegations of the petition.2 and Crystal Davis generally denying the A trial was subsequently held on March 20, which consisted of the testimony of Willie Zanders. court signed a judgment, Davis3 2018, On June 14, 2018, the trial which entered a preliminary default against Crystal claims against Robert Davis, Bianca and dismissed Willie Zanders' Wesley -Davis, and Crystal Davis since the note was signed only by Shelvey Davis. The June 14, 2018 judgment further provided: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Willie Zanders, and against defendant, Shelvey Davis, only in the sum of $12, 055. 00 plus attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the principal and interest and all court costs connected with these proceedings. From this judgment, Willie Zanders has appealed, contending that the trial court erred in not finding Robert Davis and Bianca Wesley -Davis solidarily liable with Shelvey Davis for the amounts awarded in the judgment; in dismissing Willie Zanders' claim against Crystal Davis on the same day a preliminary default was 1 Willie Zanders' petition does not have attached thereto ( nor does the record contain) any document executed by Crystal Davis. Based on a review of Willie Zanders' appellate brief, he apparently claims that Crystal Davis, who is the spouse of Robert Davis, is liable for the sum owed pursuant to the laws of community property and the indemnitor' s promise that Robert Davis signed, which Willie Zanders maintains is a community obligation. 2 Included within the answer by the defendants was a peremptory exception raising the objections of no right of action and no cause of action. The defendants subsequently dismissed the objection of no cause of action and the trial court subsequently overruled the objection of no right of action. Furthermore, we note that the pleading containing the answer and peremptory exception filed on behalf of the defendants was not signed by their attorney. However, because we find, for the reasons detailed herein, that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this appeal, we decline to address the effect of the failure to sign this pleading. See La. C. C. P. arts. 863 and 1003. 3 The record is not clear as to why Willie Zanders moved for and the trial court entered a preliminary default against Crystal Davis, as the record reflects that she filed an answer on May 9, 2017. We do note, however, that the attorney who filed the ( unsigned) answer on behalf of the defendants indicated at trial that he did not represent Crystal Davis. See footnote 2. K entered against her; and in awarding attorney fees in the amount of 25% of the principal and interest, as provided in the original promissory note rather than 33 of the principal and interest as provided in the bail bond indemnitor' s 1/ 3% agreement. APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appellate courts have a duty to examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do not raise the issue. Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., So. 3d 1054, Inc., Texas Gas Exploration 2011- 0520 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 11/ 9/ 11), 1059, writ denied, 2012- 0360 ( La. 4/ 9/ 12), 85 So. 3d 698. 79 This Court' s appellate jurisdiction extends to " final judgments," which are those that determine the merits in whole or in part. See La. C. C. P. arts. 1841 and 2083. A valid judgment must be " Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, So. 2d 364, 365. precise, definite, 2002- 0045 ( and La. App. certain." Laird v. St. 1St Cir. 12/ 20/ 02), 836 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. See Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 2001- 2016 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 11/ 27/ 02), 837 So. 2d 43, 44. These determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366. Stated differently, a judgment cannot require reference documents or pleadings in order to discern the court' s ruling. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 913- 914. 2001- 0809 ( La. "App. to extrinsic Vanderbrook v. 1St Cir. 5/ 10/ 02), 818 So. 2d 906, Thus, a judgment that does not contain decretal language cannot be considered as a final judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such a judgment. See Johnson v. Mount Pilgrim Baptist Church, 2005- 0337 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 3/ 24/ 06), 934 So. 2d 66, 67. 11 In this case, as previously noted, the June 14, 2018 judgment awarded Willie Zanders " only" the sum of $12, 055. 00, " attorney fees in the amount of 25% principal and interest," and all court costs. of the However, the exact amount of attorney fees cannot be determined from the June 14, 2018 judgment itself—the judgment merely indicates that the attorney fees are 25% specifically, with respect to the " interest," of the principal and interest. More the judgment does not identity whether such interest is legal interest or some other interest, i.e. contractual interest pursuant to the note, and whether that interest is from judicial demand, the date the note was due, the date of judgment, or some other date. Furthermore, the judgment does not identify the amount of the principal— i.e., it does not identify the sum of 12, 055. 00 as the principal amount. 14, Absent such necessary information, the June 2018 judgment on appeal lacks precise and certain decretal language, is defective, and cannot be considered a final judgment for purposes of appeal. As such, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review this matter and we must dismiss Willie Zanders' appeal of the June 14, 2018 judgment.4 4 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. Generally, appellate courts have exercised that discretion when the motion for appeal was filed within the thirty -day time period allowed for the filing of an application for supervisory writs under Rule 4- 3 of the Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, and where reversal of the district court' s decision would terminate the litigation, or where clear error in the district court' s judgment, if not corrected, will create a grave injustice. However, when the jurisdictional defect lies in the non -finality of a judgment ( as opposed to an appeal from an interlocutory 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 judgment), appeal will exist upon the entry of a judgment containing the requisite precise, definite, and certain decretal language necessary for appellate review. This is because in the absence of precise, definite and certain decretal language, the judgment is defective, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits, even if we were to convert the matter to an application for supervisory writs. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this appeal of a judgment that is not final for lack of precise language to an application for supervisory writs. See Boyd Louisiana Racing, Inc. v. Bridges, 2015- 0393, pp. 2- 4 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 23/ 15) unpublished). 5 CONCLUSION For all of the above and foregoing reasons, Willie Zanders' appeal of the June 14, 2018 judgment is dismissed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, Willie Zanders. APPEAL DISMISSED. 31
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.
