176 So. 3d 601
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- This is a nullity action where Intradel seeks to annul a prior eviction judgment against it by Poydras Center.
- The underlying suit was an eviction proceeding involving two reserved parking spaces at 650 Poydras Street, New Orleans; the trial court ruled for Intradel, but an appellate court reversed and granted eviction to Poydras Center.
- Intradel filed multiple suits afterward, including the current nullity action filed in January 2014, and Poydras Center asserted several exceptions (prescription, res judicata, no cause of action, lis pendens), which the trial court ultimately sustained only on lis pendens and no cause of action.
- After the exceptions, the court addressed Poydras Center’s request for costs and attorney’s fees; the June 12, 2014 judgment on the exceptions was silent about attorney’s fees.
- Intradel filed a devolutive appeal in August 2014, but the trial court denied it as untimely; Intradel sought to preserve entitlement to appeal arguing the attorney’s fees issue remained undecided, leading to further hearings and rulings.
- The October 29, 2014 judgment denied Intradel’s motion for appeal; Intradel also filed writs seeking supervisory review, which were denied. The appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeals as non-appealable, interlocutory judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the judgments appealed from final and appealable? | Intradel argues the June 12, 2014 judgment was not final because the attorney’s fees issue remained undecided. | Poydras Center contends the June 12 judgment was silent on attorney’s fees and thus final; the silence presumes denial. | Judgments are final and appealable; silence on an issue denotes denial. |
| If the judgments are interlocutory, do the cited rulings fall within appellate review? | Intradel contends the rulings denying its rules to show cause should be appealable. | Poydras Center argues these are non-appealable interlocutory judgments and not subject to review. | The denials of the rules to show cause are interlocutory and not appealable. |
| Did the trial court err by not entertaining the attorney’s fees request as part of the final judgment? | Intradel maintains the attorney’s fees issue was reserved and pending, thus not final. | Poydras Center maintains the request was denied by silence and, therefore, not pending. | The attorney’s fees issue was implicitly denied by the final judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru S., Inc., 616 So.2d 1234 (La. 1993) (final judgments governability and related principles)
- Conrad v. McGowan Working Partners, Inc., 997 So.2d 872 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2008) (partial judgments and attorney’s fees considerations on appeal)
- Northshore Capital Enterprises v. St. Tammany Hosp. Dist. No. 2, 822 So.2d 109 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (written judgment governs when oral reasons conflict)
- Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc. v. Capitol Lake Properties, Inc., 915 So.2d 784 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (when a trial judge's oral reasons conflict with a written judgment, the written judgment governs)
- Seals v. Omni Bank Ins. Companies, 104 So.3d 667 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2012) (denial of a rule to show cause is an interlocutory judgment)