Opinion
2023 CW 0882
03-22-2024
DEREK JAY LECOMPTE v. SARA N. LOMBARD
Adam John Verret Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Derek Jay Lecompte Jerri G. Smitko Houma, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Sara N. Lombard
Appealed from the 32nd Judicial District Court Parish of Terrebonne, State of Louisiana No. 184041 The Honorable Randall L. Bethancourt, Judge Presiding
Adam John Verret Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Derek Jay Lecompte
Jerri G. Smitko Houma, Louisiana Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Sara N. Lombard
BEFORE: WELCH, WOLFE, AND STROMBERG, JJ.
WOLFE, J.
Plaintiff, Derek Jay Lecompte, appeals the trial court's April 24, 2023 judgment, which provides that a service attempt was not valid and that previously filed matters remained pending.
A threshold inquiry in every appeal is whether there is a basis for jurisdiction. See Advanced Leveling &Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Co., Inc., 2017-1250 (La.App. 1st Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1046 (en banc). This court's appellate jurisdiction extends to final judgments, which determine the merits of the controversy in whole or in part, and to interlocutory judgments made expressly appealable by law. See La. Code Civ. P. arts. 1841 and 2083; 4 C's Land Corp. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., 2021-0121 (La.App. 1st Cir. 10/21/21), 332 So.3d 123, 126, writ denied, 2021-01735 (La. 1/19/22), 331 So.3d 322. A final judgment determines the merits of a controversy in whole or in part. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1841. In contrast, an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits, but decides only preliminary matters in the course of an action. La. Code Civ. P. art. 1841.
It is undisputed that the April 24,2023 judgment does not determine the merits of this child custody dispute in whole or in part; therefore, it is an interlocutory judgment. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 1841. Further, no provision of law expressly provides for its appeal.
This court has the discretion to convert appeals to applications for supervisory writs. See Stelluto v. Stelluto, 2005-0074 (La. 6/29/05), 914 So.2d 34, 39. We do so here, noting that this appeal was granted after Mr. Lecompte timely filed a notice of intent to seek a supervisory writ. However, we deny the writ application, finding that the merits of the instant case do not meet the criteria for supervisory review set forth by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Herlitz Construction Co., Inc. v. Hotel Investors of New Iberia, Inc., 396 So.2d 878 (La. 1981) (per curiam). Moreover, we note that the record contains (and Mr. Lecompte attached to his appellate brief) a subsequent May 22, 2023 judgment on the same issues, which is not properly before us for review.
The pleading was entitled "NOTICE OF SUPERVISORY WRIT" and requested that a supervisory writ be granted; however, it also internally referenced itself as a notice of appeal. The attached order granted the request for supervisory writ and also ordered lodging of the record. We further note that Mr. Lecompte's appellate brief refers to the proceeding in this court as both an appeal and application for supervisory writ.
In Herlitz, the Louisiana Supreme Court directed appellate courts to consider an application for supervisory writ under their supervisory jurisdiction, even though relief may be ultimately available to the applicant on appeal, when the trial court judgment was arguably incorrect, a reversal would terminate the litigation (in whole or in part), and there was no dispute of fact to be resolved. See also Malus v. Adair Asset Management, LLC, 2016-0610 (La.App. 1st Cir, 12/22/16), 209 So.3d 1055, 1062.
For these reasons, this appeal is converted to an application for supervisory writ, which is denied. Costs of this matter are assessed to Derek Jay Lecompte.
APPEAL CONVERTED TO APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT; WRIT DENIED.