JENNIFER MAYFIELD AND BENDAL MAYFIELD VERSUS THOMAS W. FOTHERGILL, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT CA 18-263 JENNIFER MAYFIELD AND BENDAL MAYFIELD VERSUS THOMAS W. FOTHERGILL, ET AL. ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 20155971 HONORABLE DAVID MICHAEL SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** SYLVIA R. COOKS JUDGE ********** Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Elizabeth A. Pickett and Billy H. Ezell, Judges. APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDED. Gretchen Heider Mayard Martin Mayard, LLC Post Office Box 81338 Lafayette, LA 70598-1338 (337) 291-2440 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. Thomas W. Fothergill Tracy Peter Curtis Curtis Lee Hollinger, Jr. The Glenn Armentor Law Corp. 300 Stewart St. Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 233-1471 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS: Jennifer Mayfield Bendal Mayfield COOKS, Judge. This court, on its own motion, issued a rule for the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Jennifer Mayfield and Bendal Mayfield, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for having been taken from a judgment lacking proper decretal language. For the reasons assigned, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice. The case was tried before a jury, and the jury verdict was rendered on November 7, 2017. Then, on November 28, 2017, the trial court signed a judgment which, after copying the jury’s verdict form, reads in pertinent part: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be judgment herein in favor of the defendants, Thomas Fothergill and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and against the Plaintiffs, Jennifer and Bendal Mayfield. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREE that the plaintiffs, Jennifer and Bendal Mayfield, shall pay all court costs. In Input/Output Marine v. Wilson Greatbatch, 10-477, p. 13 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 916 (citations omitted; emphasis added), another case involving a jury verdict, the court stated: 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. The specific relief granted should be determinable from the judgment without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or reasons for judgment. The Plaintiffs, in their brief in response to this court’s rule, agree that the trial court’s judgment lacks proper decretal language. Although the judgment assesses all costs against the Plaintiffs, it is silent as to the relief granted by the judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this court’s ruling. APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REMANDED. THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Court of Appeal.
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.
