268 So. 3d 1044
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Lathan contracted for construction at St. Roch Market and engaged Advanced Leveling to furnish materials and install concrete topping for $52,800; no written subcontract was executed.
- Advanced Leveling completed work; the owner accepted the work and authorized payment around February 2014.
- Advanced Leveling sued Lathan on an open account on August 11, 2016, claiming unpaid balance and seeking attorney's fees under La. R.S. 9:2781 after demand.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Advanced Leveling and entered judgment on May 2, 2017 for $16,420 plus legal interest and “reasonable attorney’s fees.”
- On appeal, the parties and the court focused on whether the judgment was final and appealable given the award of unspecified "reasonable attorney's fees."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability / Finality of judgment with unspecified attorney’s fees | The judgment awards the relief prayed and is appealable despite fees to be fixed later | The award of unspecified "reasonable attorney’s fees" makes the judgment indefinite and non-appealable | The unspecified fee award renders the judgment non-final and the appellate court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
| Existence of an open account | Advanced Leveling: sold/delivered services on open account and is owed balance | Lathan: disputed existence of open account and raised issues about work deficiencies and costs to correct | Court did not reach merits due to lack of appellate jurisdiction over the judgment as entered |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on amount owed | Advanced Leveling: summary judgment proper and amount due established | Lathan: genuine disputes of material fact (deficiencies, corrective costs) make summary judgment improper | Not addressed on appeal because appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Severability of indefinite portion of judgment | Advanced Leveling: remaining decretal parts reviewable even if fees unspecified | Lathan: whole judgment should be dismissed or remanded to correct uncertainty | Majority: indefinite fee award makes entire judgment non-appealable; prior cases allowing partial review overruled; concurrence would remand if certified; dissent would sever and decide merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Gas Exploration Corp. v. Lafourche Realty Co., Inc., 79 So.3d 1054 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2011) (appellate courts must examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 836 So.2d 364 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (judgment must be precise, definite, and certain)
- Carter v. Williamson Eye Center, 837 So.2d 43 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (final judgment must contain decretal language identifying parties and relief)
- Vanderbrook v. Coachmen Industries, Inc., 818 So.2d 906 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (amount of damages should be determinable from judgment itself)
- Crockerham v. Weyerhaeuser Holden Wood Products, 223 So.3d 533 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (held portions of judgment could be severed for review; overruled by majority here)