SIMPLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. VERSUS TEXAS PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 17-222 SIMPLE ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. VERSUS TEXAS PROPERTY, LLC, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20135599 HONORABLE LAURIE A. HULIN, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** JOHN E. CONERY JUDGE ********** Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, John E. Conery, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CASE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT. Ike Huval Duhon Law Firm Post Office Box 52566 Lafayette, Louisiana 70505 (337) 237-9868 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Texas Property, LLC Eric Scott Neumann Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2220 Lafayette, Louisiana 70502-2220 (337) 237-1113 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Nedal Qamhiyeh Dustin B. Gibson Attorney at Law 1538 West Pinhook, Suite 103 Lafayette, Louisiana 70503 (337) 501-2418 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: Simple Enterprises, Inc. Nolton J. Dalcourt, Jr. CONERY, Judge. The Judgment at issue lacks proper decretal language. The appeal is dismissed without prejudice and this case is remanded to the trial court for preparation of a proper final judgment with appropriate decretal language in accordance with the law. See Thomas v. Lafayette Parish Sch. Sys., 13-91 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/6/13), 128 So.3d 1055. However, we note that this court has stated that “[a] valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. 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.” State v. White, 05-718 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/1/06), 921 So.2d 1144, 1146. Moreover, a judgment cannot require reference to extrinsic documents or pleading in order to discern the court’s ruling. Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 2001-809 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 906. Thomas, 128 So.3d at 1056 (emphasis added); See also Stutes v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., 17-53, (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/8/17), 215 So.3d 287; Holland v. Holland, 16117 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/16), 188 So.3d 484; Urquhart v. Spencer, 15-1354, 151355 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/1/16), 204 So.3d 1074; Morraz–Blandon v. Voiron, 16122, (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/25/16), 199 So.3d 1220; and Fortenberry v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 14-953, (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/15/14) (unpublished opinion). In the interest of judicial economy, within thirty (30) days of this ruling, and by stipulation of all counsel, the record may remain lodged in this court and the final judgment on remand may be added to supplement this record, with the matter then being docketed for final disposition by this panel. APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, CASE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT. This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-13.3.

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.