Daneco LLC v. Just Gators Inc.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: 2023CA0642
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT

DOCKET NUMBER 2023 CA 0642

DANECO, L. L. C.

VERSUS

JUST GATORS, INC.

Judgment Rendered; JAN 2 3 2024

I ON APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, DIVISION C IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF TERREBONNE STATE OF LOUISIANA DOCKET NUMBER 193702

HONORABLE JUAN W. PICKETf, JUDGE PRESIDING

Sye J. Broussard Attorney for Defendant -Appellant Houma, Louisiana Just Gators, Inc.

Stanwood R. Dual Attorneys for Plaintiff -Appellee April A. Trahan Daneco, LLC Harley M. Papa Houma, Louisiana

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND GREENE, 33. GREENE, ).

This is an appeal of a judgment of eviction regarding portions of a commercia

lease. After review, we remand with instructions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 28, 2018, Daneco, LLC ( Daneco) entered into several agreements

pursuant to a Master Business Agreement with Just Gators, Inc (Just Gators) and LaGarto

Properties. One of the agreements provided that Daneco would lease its alligator farm

to Just Gators. The lease provided for a $ 40, 000. 00 monthly lease payment from Just

Gators to Daneco, with a six- year term and a right to renew for an additional six years.

The commercial lease included " Grow -Up Buildings," a food storage structure, a freezer

building, a cold storage incubator, two " Polaris Buggies," one " John Deere Buggy," four

forklifts, and a Ford flatbed truck.

Over time the relationship between Daneco and Just Gators deteriorated, and on

May 11, 2022, Daneco sent a notice to vacate any and all unleased property to Just

Gators. On May 24, 2022, Daneco filed a petition to evict Just Gators from the " unleased

property," which was defined as " property owned by [ Daneco], including, but not limited

to, heater sheds, pumps, buildings, etc."' Just Gators filed an answer, raising affirmative

defenses and exceptions, and made a reconventional demand. Just Gators asserted that

it had the right to occupy the property pursuant to the lease. In its reconventionai

demand, Just Gators asserted the eviction claim was fraudulent and lacked merit. Just

Gators asked that the petition be dismissed at Daneco' s costs, and that it be awarded

expenses, attorney fees, and all other general and equitable relief. The matter was heard

on October 11, 2022.

Thereafter, the trial court granted Daneco' s petition to evict, but did not identify

the property that Just Gators was evicted from. The judgment provides:

When after considering the pleadings, the arguments of counsel, and the evidence adduced during [ Daneco's] Petition to Evict, the Court renders judgment as follows:

1 The petition noted that a separate rule to evict Just Gators from the leased property was pending in Division C, Docket No. 192404.

2 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that [ Daneco's] Petition to Evict is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that [ Just Gators] shall bear the costs associated with this Eviction.

The judgment was signed on March 5, 2023. Just Gators filed a suspensive appeal

from that judgment.

A valid judgment must be precise, definite, and certain. Laird v. St. Tammany

Parish Safe Harbor, 2002- 0045 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 20/ 02), 836 So. 2d 364, 365. A final

appealable judgment must contain decretal language and must name the parry in favor

of whom the ruling is ordered, the parry against whom the ruling is ordered, and the

relief that is granted or denied. Advanced Leveling & Concrete Solutions v. The

Lathan Co., Inc., 2017- 1250 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 20/ 18), 268 So. 3d 1044, 1046 ( en

banc). These determinations should be evident from the language of the judgment

without reference to other documents in the record. Laird, 836 So. 2d at 366.

The judgment granted Daneco's petition for eviction from the property, but did not

specify the property that Just Gators was evicted from. A lack of proper language in a

judgment that is otherwise a final judgment does not divest the appellate court of

jurisdiction. Instead, the final judgment shall be corrected to include proper decretal

language by an amendment in accordance with La. C. C. P. art. 1951. See La, C. C. P. art.

1918, Comments -2021, Comment (a). Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court

to correct the deficiency in the judgment. See Hill International Inc. v. ] TS Realty

Corp., 2021- 0157 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/ 21), 342 So. 3d 322, 327- 328.

DECREE

Accordingly, this matter is remanded for the limited purpose of instructing the trial

court to sign an amended final judgment that is precise, definite, and certain and contains

proper decretal language. See La. C. C. P. arts. 1918( A), 1951, and 2088( A)( 12). The

record herein shall be supplemented with the amended judgment no later than forty-five

days following the issuance of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.