Opinion
23-CA-418
03-13-2024
ULFERS DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. A AND C HOLDINGS LLC, GEORGE ACKEL, AND GABRIEL CORCHIANI
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, A AND C HOLDINGS, LLC AND GEORGE ACKEL Dominick J. Latino, III. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, CORCHIANI INVESTMENTS, INC. Jarred P. Bradley.
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 806-058, DIVISION "F" HONORABLE MICHAEL P. MENTZ, JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, A AND C HOLDINGS, LLC AND GEORGE ACKEL Dominick J. Latino, III.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, CORCHIANI INVESTMENTS, INC. Jarred P. Bradley.
Panel composed of Judges John J. Molaison, Jr., Scott U Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel.
APPEAL DISMISSED
JJM
SUS
TSM
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE.
The defendants/appellants, A and C Holdings, LLC and George Ackel, appeal the March 8, 2023 judgment that denied their Exceptions of Prematurity, Unauthorized Use of Summary Proceedings/Nonconformity, and Improper Cumulation of Actions, and granted the appellee - Corchiani Investments, Inc.'s, Motion for Charging Order. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This appeal stems from a petition for breach of a commercial lease filed by Ulfers Development, LLC ("Ulfers") against the defendants A and C Holdings, LLC ("A and C"), George Ackel, and Gabriel Corchiani. On March 14, 2022, the trial court granted Ulfers' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Ulfers and against A and C, Ackel, and Gabriel Corchiani in the amount of $372,754.18. A and C and Ackel filed a devolutive appeal of the March 14, 2022 judgment. This Court affirmed the judgment. Ulfers Dev., LLC v. A & C Holdings LLC, 22-268 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/29/23), 360 So.3d 105. On September 16, 2022, Corchiani Investments, LLC, ("Corchiani"), purchased an assignment of the March 14, 2022 judgment from Ulfers. On October 3, 2022, while the appeal was pending, Corchiani filed a motion to intervene explaining that after the March 14, 2022 judgment was rendered, it purchased an assignment of the judgment from Ulfers. This Court joined Corchiani as a party to these proceedings based on the assignment of interests in the March 14, 2022 judgment from Ulfers to Corchiani.
A and C was originally owned by Mr. Ackel and Mr. Corchiani, however, Mr. Corchiani sold his ownership interest in A and C to Mr. Ackel in September or October 2017.
The record indicates that Corchiani Investments, LLC was joined as a party to these proceedings and Corchiani Investments, LLC filed the judgment debtor rule and motion for charging order. However, the March 8, 2023 judgment that is the subject of this appeal grants the motion for charging order and motion for judgment debtor rule in favor of Corchiani Investments, Inc. In their brief, the appellants refer to the appellee as Corchiani Investments, LLC. In its brief, Corchiani Investments, Inc. states that Corchiani Investments, Inc., was "incorrectly named Corchiani Investments, LLC."
On October 10, 2022, Corchiani filed a Motion for Examination of Judgment Debtor. On November 23, 2022, Corchiani filed a Motion for Charging Order pursuant to La. R.S. 12:1331. On February 13, 2023, the appellants filed "Exceptions of Prematurity, Unauthorized Use of Summary Proceedings and Nonconformity of Petition, and Improper Cumulation." At the conclusion of the hearing held on February 14, 2023, the trial court denied the appellants' exceptions and granted Corchiani's motion for charging order and judgment debtor rule. This judgment was reduced to writing on March 8, 2023. The appellants filed a devolutive appeal.
The trial court initially granted the motions for examination of judgment debtor and charging order on December 5, 2022. A and C and Ackel filed a motion for new trial which was granted, and the December 5, 2022 judgment was vacated.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
The March 8, 2023 judgment states in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Corchiani Investments, Inc.'s Motion for Charging Order and Motion for Judgment Debtor Rule are GRANTED;
• In favor of Corchiani Investments, Inc. and against George J. Ackel, III
• Corchiani Investments, Inc. shall be deemed an assignee of the membership interests of George J. Ackel a/k/a George J. Ackel, III in LAG Oasis, LLC pending payment in full of the March 14, 2022 Judgment. Any distributions designated to George J. Ackel by LAG Oasis, LLC shall be paid to Corchiani Investments, Inc. This order shall be deemed continuous until payment of the March 14, 2022 Judgment has been made in full to Corchiani Investments, Inc.
• Corchiani Investments, Inc. shall be deemed an assignee of the membership interests of George J Ackel a/k/a George J. Ackel, III in Jefferson Hwy Management, LLC pending payment in full of the March 14, 2022 Judgment. Any distributions designated to George J. Ackel by Jefferson Hwy Management, LLC shall be paid to Corchiani Investments, Inc. This order shall be deemed continuous until payment of the March 14, 2022 Judgment has been made in full to Corchiani Investments, LLC.
Upon review of the March 8, 2023 judgment, this Court determined that the judgment was deficient because it lacks the requisite decretal language. In an order dated February 28, 2024, this court stated:
La. R.S. 12:1331 governs charging orders and provides that "the court may charge the membership interest of the member with payment of the unsatisfied amount of judgment with interest." [Emphasis added.] The March 8, 2023 judgment does not state the amount of the March 14, 2022 judgment charged to appellant George Ackel's membership interests.
A final judgment must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in favor of whom the relief is awarded, the party against whom relief is awarded, and the specific relief that is granted or denied. La. C.C.P. art. 1918. The specific relief granted or denied should be determinable from the judgment itself without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings, a transcript, or reasons for judgment. Babin v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 11-192 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/27/11), 76 So.3d 100, 102.
On March 4, 2024, the trial judge amended the decretal language of the judgment with regard to the appellant's exceptions that were denied. However, the decretal language that granted the charging order was left unchanged.
As an appellate court, we have the duty to examine our subject matter jurisdiction and to determine sua sponte whether such subject matter jurisdiction exists, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 17-1250 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/18), 268 So.3d 1044, 1046. This court's appellate jurisdiction only extends to "final judgments." Rose v. Twin River Development, LLC, 17-0319 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/1/17), 233 So.3d 679, 683.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1918 mandates that a final judgment be identified as such by appropriate language. It is well settled that a final judgment must be precise, definite, and certain, and must contain decretal language. Carter v. Carter, 21-1173 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/12/22), 342 So.3d 391, 394. Decretal language 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. Id. The specific relief granted must be determinable from the judgment so that a third person is able to determine from the judgment the amount owed without reference to other documents. Hill International, Inc. v. JTS Realty Corp., 21-0157 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/30/21), 342 So.3d 322, 326. Where the amount of an award may only be ascertained by extrinsic reference, it is not a proper judgment. Carter, 342 So.3d at 394, n.1. In the absence of such decretal language, the ruling is not a valid final judgment, and in the absence of a valid final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Carter, 342 So.3d at 394.
The March 8, 2023 judgment lacks specificity and the unsatisfied amount of the judgment cannot be determined without referring to other documents and extrinsic evidence. Thus, it is not a proper judgment.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
APPEAL DISMISSED.