Jackson v. Sumlin, 196 So. 3d 902

Gregory Jackson sued to annul an Act of Donation that had conveyed property to Darryl Sumlin.
Sumlin filed a reconventional demand seeking damages and the value of improvements to the property if the donation were annulled.
A bench trial was held on September 15, 2015; testimony and exhibits were presented on both the main demand and the reconventional demand.
On November 9, 2015, the trial court annulled the Act of Donation in favor of Jackson but found insufficient evidence to resolve Sumlin’s reconventional claim; the court severed the reconventional demand and scheduled a status conference for further proceedings.
Sumlin sought and obtained a suspensive appeal of the November 9 judgment; his appellate brief challenges the annulment ruling.
The appellate court determined the November 9 judgment was a nonfinal partial judgment because the reconventional demand remained unresolved and the trial court did not designate the judgment final under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the November 9, 2015 judgment is a final, appealable judgment	Sumlin treats the annulment judgment as appealable and challenges its merits	Jackson contends the annulment ruling was valid; alternatively, the judgment should be treated as final	Court held the judgment is not final because it left Sumlin’s reconventional demand pending and was not designated final under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)
Whether severance in the November 9 judgment made the trial of principal and incidental demands separate for final-judgment purposes	Sumlin implicitly argues the judgment is appealable despite severance	Jackson relies on the trial record and judgment outcome to support finality	Court held severance occurred post-trial via the judgment; because the demands were tried together, they were not ‘‘tried separately’’ and finality under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(A)(4) did not apply
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to decide the merits	Sumlin asks appellate review of annulment merits	Jackson argues appeal is premature because partial claims remain	Court concluded it lacks appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal without prejudice, remanding for further trial-court proceedings

Input/Output Marine Sys. v. Wilson Greatbatch Techs., Inc., 52 So.3d 909 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction absent a valid final judgment)
Claiborne Medical Corp. v. Siddiqui, 113 So.3d 1109 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (partial judgments are not final unless designated as such under La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B))
Laviolette v. Dubose, 983 So.2d 160 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (same principle regarding nonfinal partial judgments)