Allen McMillian v. Michael Breen ( 2019 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2018 CA 0998
ALLEN McMILLIAN
VERSUS
MICHAEL BREEN, ET AL
Judgment Rendered:
UG "Cf 2 2019·
Appealed from the
22nd Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of St. Tammany
State of Louisiana
Case No. 2007-16388
The Honorable William H. Burris, Judge Presiding
Byard Edwards, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Hammond, Louisiana Michael Breen
John M. Dubreuil Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Covington, Louisiana Sarah McMillin, aka Sarah McMillian,
as the independent administratrix of the
Charles M. Hughes, Jr. succession of Alan K. McMillian, aka
Mandeville, Louisiana Alan K. McMillin, aka Allen McMillian,
aka Allen McMillin
Scott H. Fruge
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
BEFORE: GUIDRY, CRAIN, AND THERIOT, JJ.
THERIOT,J.
Michael Breen appeals the February 21, 2018 judgment of the Twenty-
Second Judicial District Court granting the motion to withdraw funds from the
registry of the court filed by Sarah McMillin, as independent administratix of the
succession of Allen McMillin. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1
On June 8, 2001, Allen McMillin filed a petition for damages in the
Twenty-First Judicial District Court (" 2Pt JDC"), naming Michael Breen and
Breen Chiropractic Corporation as defendants. Mr. McMillin alleged that on June
11, 2000, he was rendered quadriplegic after diving head first into the Tangipahoa
River and striking rubble or other foreign objects that were in the river. The river
was located at the rear of property Mr. McMillin was renting from Mr. Breen. Mr.
McMillin alleged that the rubble, which included concrete and wood, had been
deposited into the river by Mr. Breen.
Mr. Breen was personally served with the citation and petition on September
2
10, 2001. Mr. Breen did not file an answer to the petition or respond to the
lawsuit. On October 30, 2003, the trial court entered a preliminary default against
Mr. Breen and Breen Chiropractic Corporation. Subsequently, on July 26, 2004,
following a hearing pursuant to La. Code Civ. P. art. 1702(A), the trial court
entered a default judgment in Mr. McMillin's favor and against Mr. Breen for
8,585,235.53. The default judgment was affirmed on appeal and is a final
judgment. See McMillin v. Breen, 2005-0732 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/29/06); 925 So.2d
776, writ denied, 2006-1817 (La. 11/9/06); 941 So.2d 41.
1
Mr. McMillin has also been referred to as Allen McMillian, Alan K. McMillian, and Alan K. McMillin, throughout
these proceedings.
2
Mr. Breen has admitted in federal proceedings that he was personally served with the citation and petition. See
Breen v. McMillin, No. 08-1089, 2008 WL 2224864, at * 2-4 (E.D. La. May 27, 2008).
2
Since the default judgment became final, both parties have filed extensive
pleadings. The actions relevant to the current proceedings are as follows. On
January 11, 2007, Mr. McMillin filed a petition to make the judgment executory
and for a writ of fieri facias in the 21st JDC, seeking the seizure and sale of certain
property owned by Mr. Breen and located in Tangipahoa Parish. Similarly, on
November 27, 2007, Mr. McMillin filed a petition to make the judgment executory
and for writ of fieri facias in the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court (''22nd
JDC"), seeking the seizure and sale of property owned by Mr. Breen and located in
St. Tammany Parish.
On April 30, 2008, Mr. McMillin filed another petition for writ of fieri
facias in the 22nd JDC, seeking to enforce the default judgment directing the St.
Tammany Parish sheriff to seize and sell Mr. Breen's property in that parish. Mr.
McMillin alleged that Mr. Breen owned 100% of the issued and outstanding stock
in Breen Chiropractic Corporation, a corporation domiciled in St. Tammany
Parish. On May 1, 2008, the 22nd JDC ordered the same.
On March 11, 2009, Mr. McMillin died. His daughter, Sarah McMillin, was
later appointed independent administratix of his estate.
On May 19, 2009, Mr. Breen filed an exception of lis pendens with the 22nd
JDC, alleging that the suit pending in the 21st JDC barred prosecution of Mr.
McMillin's suit seeking seizure and sale of Mr. Breen's property in St. Tammany
Parish. Although it appears that Mr. Breen's exception of lis pendens was
originally recorded with the office of the clerk of court for the 22nd JDC, the lis
pendens was later cancelled on October 17, 2016.
On September 28, 2009, Mr. Breen filed a petition to nullify the 2004
default judgment in the 21st JDC, alleging improper service of process. 3
3
This petition was deemed abandoned as of October 27, 2012 pursuant to a September 13, 2017 judgment of
dismissal for abandonment.
3
On January 29, 2015, Ms. McMillin, as independent administratix of Mr.
McMillin's estate, filed an ex-parte motion in the 22nd JDC asking the court to
order Mr. Breen to tum over accounts of Breen Chiropractic Corporation and
Michael Breen to the registry of the court. On January 30, 2015, the trial court
signed an order granting that motion.
On September 22, 2016, Ms. McMillin filed an ex parte motion in the 22nd
JDC, asking the trial court to order the State of Louisiana's Department of
Treasury, Unclaimed Property Division (" Unclaimed Property Division") to tum
over funds in the division's possession that had originally belonged to Mr. Breen.
This order was granted and signed on the same date.
On August 9, 2017, Ms. McMillin filed a motion to withdraw funds from the
registry of the court in the 22nd JDC. This motion referred to $182,326.11 that had
been deposited into the court's registry by Citizens Bank and Trust Company, and
141,041.76 that had been deposited into the court's registry by the Unclaimed
4
Property Division. Ms. McMillin asked the court to release the funds in its
registry to her as partial satisfaction of the 2004 default judgment against Mr.
Breen.
In an order signed October 6, 2018, the 22nd JDC ordered funds totaling
140,057.88, which were seized pursuant to the writ of fieri facias issued on May
1, 2008 and a subsequent order to seize bank accounts dated August 11, 2008, and
deposited into the court's registry, to be paid to Ms. McMillin in partial satisfaction
of the judgment. This same order acknowledged funds that were taken from the
Breen Chiropractic Clinic and ordered that those funds, which had also been seized
4
The unclaimed funds were returned to the St. Tammany Parish Clerk of Court pursuant to La. R.S. 9:167.
4
by the court, were to remain on deposit in the registry of the court until further
5
order ofthe court.
On December 1, 2017, Mr. Breen filed a petition to nullify the original
default judgment against him, alleging that the default judgment was based on
insufficient service. This petition was filed in the 22nd JDC, but referenced a
petition to nullify the same judgment that was pending in the 21st JDC. However,
as previously stated, Mr. Breen's September 28, 2009 petition to nullify the default
judgment, which was filed in the 21st JDC, was abandoned. The December 1, 2017
petition appears to still be pending, but is not before us on appeal.
On January 22, 2018, Ms. McMillin filed another motion to withdraw funds
from the registry ofthe court in the 22nd JDC. In this motion, Ms. McMillin sought
the funds that had been seized from the Breen Chiropractic Clinic, which remained
on deposit in the registry ofthe court.
On February 8, 2018, the 22nd JDC ordered that the money being held for the
chiropractic practice be paid to Ms. McMillin. This judgment, which did not
include a Rule 9.5 certificate, was vacated on the same day.
On February 15, 2018, Mr. Breen filed a proposed judgment and a request
for reconsideration of the February 8, 2018 judgment in the 22nd JDC, in which he
again alleged that the 2004 default judgment was an absolute nullity. Further, Mr.
Breen referenced a May 9, 2009 lis pendens that was filed in the 2ist JDC, and
alleged that he was entitled to have his exception of lis pendens granted because
the matter could only be heard in the 21st JDC.
On February 21, 2018, the trial court granted a second order, requiring the
chiropractic funds in the court's registry to be paid to Ms. McMillin. The February
21, 2018 judgment includes a Rule 9.5 certificate. This appeal followed.
5
These funds were listed as four separate amounts ($ 12,326.11; $ 50,000; $ 50,000; and $ 70,583.88) which total
182,909.99 - the same total later awarded to Ms. McMillin in the February 8, 2018 judgment, which was vacated,
and the subsequent February 21, 2018 judgment.
5
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Mr. Breen assigns the following as error:
1) Denial of the motion to continue while his attorney was in severe
pain from his spinal injuries and awaiting surgery and denial of the
motion to continue based on his allegations of lack of legal service
which allegations were denied without consideration.
2)Refusal of the court to hear Appellant's motion set on the February
8, 2018 docket and postponing his argument until July.
3)Notice of lis pendens was ignored.
4) Granting the motion to withdraw funds from the court and then
vacating that judgment, in house, on February 8, 2018 without
notice to Appellant or his attorney of record.
5) Signing and submitting a subsequent motion to withdraw funds
submitted February 21, 2018 without notice to the Appellant or his
attorney of record.
6)Denial of Appellant's proposed judgment and request for
reconsideration submitted February 15, 2018.
Failure of the clerk's office to file the appeal on the correct
judgment because of the illegal action ofthe court.
8)Failure ofthe court to require proper service on all above matters.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellate review of questions of law is simply to determine whether the
district court was legally correct. Shields v. Alvin R. Savoie & Associates, Inc.,
2017-0602 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1111117); 233 So.3d 694, 697. Questions of law are
reviewed by this court under the de nova standard of review. In re E.W., 2009-
1589 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/7/10); 38 So.3d 1033, 1038.
A continuance may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor.
La. Code Civ. P. art. 1601; Norwood v. Winn Dixie, 95-2123 ( La. App. 1 Cir.
5/10/96); 673 So.2d 360, 362. The court has wide discretion in acting upon a
motion for continuance on non-mandatory grounds. Norwood, 673 So.2d at 362.
Its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in absence of a clear showing of abuse of
that discretion. Id.6
DISCUSSION
Assignment of Error #1
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Breen asserts that the trial court erred in
denying his motion to continue the February 8, 2018 hearing when Mr. Breen's
attorney was preparing to undergo surgery. Mr. Breen's brief does not contain any
argument relating to why he believes the court's refusal to continue the hearing due
to his impending surgery was in error. We note that although Mr. Breen's motion
to continue pertained to the February 8, 2018 hearing, Mr. Breen's attorney did not
have surgery until March 19, 2018, more than five weeks after the hearing. All
assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed. The court may consider
as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been
briefed. Rule 2-12.4(B)(4), Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. See
also Louisiana Commerce & Trade Ass'n, SIF v. Williams, 2014-1680 ( La. App.
1st Cir. 6/5/15), 174 So.3d 696, 699 (" We may consider as abandoned any
assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.").
Accordingly, we consider this argument to be abandoned.
Mr. Breen further argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to
continue based on his allegations of lack of legal service. Although Mr. Breen
repeatedly alleges improper service throughout his appellate brief, it is unclear
what pleading he is referring to in this particular assignment of error. To the extent
that Mr. Breen is alleging improper service of the 2001 lawsuit, we reiterate that
the default judgment against Mr. Breen was affirmed by this court in McMillin v.
Breen, 2005-0732 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/29/06); 925 So.2d 776, writ denied, 2006-
1817 ( La. 11/9/06); 941 So.2d 41. We further reiterate that Mr. Breen has
admitted that he was personally served, while also alleging that he has no
independent recollection of the service. See Breen v. McMillin, No. 08-1089, 2008
WL 2224864, at * 2-4 ( E.D. La. May 27, 2008). Thus, insofar that this assignment
7
of error pertains to the 2001 petition and 2004 default judgment, this assignment of
error lacks merit. To the extent that this assignment of error refers to any other
service, Mr. Breen's appellate brief does not brief any such argument. Therefore
we deem the assignment of error to be abandoned pursuant to Rule 2-12.4(B)(4) of
the Uniform Rules ofLouisiana Courts ofAppeal.
Assignments of Error #2, #6, and #7
Mr. Breen's appellate brief does not contain any argument pertaining to his
second, sixth, or seventh assignments of error. We therefore consider these
assignments of error to be abandoned pursuant to Rule 2-12.4(B )(4) ofthe Uniform
Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
Assignment of Error #3
In his third assignment of error, Mr. Breen asserts that the trial court ignored
his notice of lis pendens. The record contains a February 1, 2018 exception of lis
pendens filed by Mr. Breen. This exception of lis pendens refers to two separate
petitions to nullify judgment. The first is a September 30, 2009 petition to nullify
judgment filed in the 21st JDC, under the docket number 2009-0003444. The
second is a petition to nullify judgment filed in the 22nd JDC, under docket number
2007-16388. In this exception, Mr. Breen asserted that the judgment sought to be
nullified was rendered in the 21st JDC and therefore, the action for nullity must
also be brought in the 21st JDC. Accordingly, Mr. Breen sought to have the matter
pending in the 22nd JDC dismissed or transferred to the 21st JDC.
Mr. Breen asserts that the trial court erred in ignoring his notice of lis
pendens. However, at the February 8, 2018 hearing, Mr. Breen's attorney
specifically requested that he be able to re-brief his exceptions ( including his
exception of lis pendens) at a later date. The trial court agreed and stated that the
exceptions would be heard on March 8, 2018. Accordingly, the trial court did not
ignore Mr. Breen's notice of lis pendens. This assignment of error lacks merit.
8
Assignment of Error #4
In his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Breen argues that the trial court erred
in granting the February 8, 2018 motion to withdraw funds, and then vacating that
6
judgment on the same day without notifying Mr. Breen or his attorney. Mr. Breen
asserts that he was told by the clerk's office that the judgment was vacated " in
house" and that no notification was sent to Mr. Breen's attorney.
According to Ms. McMillin, the February 8, 2018 judgment was
immediately vacated in open court and the new proposed order was then circulated
and submitted. This is consistent with a letter sent by the deputy clerk of the 22nct
JDC to Ms. McMillin's attorney, which is attached to Mr. Breen's appellate brief,
and which advises that the February 8, 2018 order on the motion to withdraw funds
from the registry court was vacated by the trial court judge.
We first address whether the trial court erred in vacating the February 8,
2018 order granting Ms. McMillin's motion to withdraw funds. Generally, the
amendment of a final judgment is governed by La. Code Civ. P. art. 1951, which
provides:
On motion of the court or any party, a final judgment may be
amended at any time to alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not
its substance, or to correct errors of calculation. The judgment may be
amended only after a hearing with notice to all parties, except that a
hearing is not required if all parties consent or if the court or the party
submitting the amended judgment certifies that it was provided to all
parties at least five days before the amendment and that no opposition
has been received. ( Emphasis added.)
This article contemplates the correction of a " clerical error" in a final judgment.
Bourgeois v. Kost, 2002-2785 ( La. 5/20/03); 846 So.2d 692, 695. Thus, the
judgment may be amended by the court where the amendment takes nothing from
6
Although Mr. Breen asserts that the trial court erred in granting the motion to withdraw funds, he provides no
argument pertaining to this portion of this assignment of error. The only mention of the merits of this case in Mr.
Breen's brief is his assertion that he was not given the opportunity to present any evidence on why the motion to
withdraw funds should not be granted at the February 8, 2018 hearing. This is incorrect. Mr. Breen's attorney had
ample opportunity to argue this issue at the February 8, 2018 hearing but chose not to address the merits. We find
that any argument pertaining to the merits of why the motion to withdraw funds was granted has been abandoned
pursuant to Rule 2-12.4(B)(4).
9
or adds nothing to the original judgment. Bourgeois, 846 So.2d at 695. An
amendment to a judgment which adds to, subtracts from, or in any way affects the
substance of the judgment, is considered a substantive amendment. Suprun v.
Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 2009-1555 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/30/10); 40
So.3d 261, 268. Substantive amendments to judgments can be made only after a
party has successfully litigated a timely application for new trial, an action for
nullity, or a timely appeal. Suprun, 40 So.3d at 268. For example, a change in a
judgment which alters the amount of relief that a party is entitled to receive is a
substantive change. Terry v. Terry, 612 So.2d 808, 809 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/23/92).
See also Denton v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2008-0483 ( La. 12/12/08); 998
So.2d 48, 52-53; 0 ' Brien v. Hoff, 2008-520 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 3/24/09); 10 So.3d
802, 805.
This same article has been utilized in instances where the trial court vacates
a judgment and renders a new judgment. See Bourgeois, 846 So.2d 692; see also
JCM Const. Co., Inc. v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2002-0824 ( La. App. 4 Cir.
11117/03); 860 So.2d 610, writ denied, 2004-0059 (La. 4/30/04); 871 So.2d 1122. 7
Thus, we must determine whether the changes made in the February 21, 2018
judgment were substantive.
There are three differences between the February 8, 2018 judgment and the
February 21, 2018 judgment. The first difference between these two judgments is
that the February 21, 2018 judgment includes a Rule 9.5 certificate, which certified
that the proposed order was circulated to counsel for Mr. Breen via facsimile on
February 8, 2018, that a copy of the order was also forwarded to counsel for Mr.
7
In Bourgeois and JCM Const. Co., Inc., it was determined that the respective trial courts lacked authority to vacate
a first judgment and render a second judgment because the changes made in both cases were substantive.
10
Breen via Federal Express on February 8, 2018, that at least five working days had
8
elapsed before presentation to the court, and that no opposition had been received.
The second difference is that while the February 8, 2018 judgment contains
a list of four specific sets of funds that were deposited into the court's registry as
property of Breen Chiropractic Corporation or Michael Breen, as well as the total
amount of those funds, the February 21, 2018 judgment contains the list of four
specific sets of funds but does not include the total.
The third and final difference between these two judgments is that the
February 8, 2018 judgment includes the language " the Clerk of Court is hereby
ordered to immediately pay said funds in the amount of $
182,909.99," whereas the
February 21, 2018 judgment states " the Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to
immediately pay all funds remaining in the Registry of the Court," without
providing the total amount of funds to be paid out to Ms. McMillin.
The addition of a Rule 9 5
. certificate corrected a clerical error m the
February 8, 2018 judgment, which failed to include a Rule 9.5 certificate. As to
the failure ofthe February 21, 2018 judgment to include the total amount of money
to be withdrawn, we note that the four amounts listed in the February 21, 2018
judgment add up to the same total included in the February 8, 2018 judgment.
Additionally, per an order signed on October 6, 2017 regarding Ms. McMillin's
previous motion to withdraw funds from the court's registry, it appears that the
funds remaining in the court's registry total $ 182,909 .99, as stated in the vacated
February 8, 2018 judgment and as implied in the February 21, 2018 judgment.
8
Louisiana District Court Rules Rule 9.5(b) requires the following ofjudgments, orders, and rulings not presented
to the judge for signature when rendered, but presented later:
T]he responsible attorney or the self-represented party shall circulate the proposed judgment,
order, or ruling to counsel for all parties and to self-represented parties and allow at least five ( 5)
working days for comment before presentation to the court. When submitted, the proposed
judgment, order, or ruling shall be accompanied by a Rule 9.5(b) certificate stating: the date of
mailing; the method of delivery of the document to other counsel ofrecord and to self-represented
parties; whether any opposition was received; and the nature ofthe opposition.
11
Accordingly, we find that the changes made in the February 21, 2018
judgment are not substantive. The February 21, 2018 judgment did not alter the
amount of relief that Ms. McMillin was entitled to receive, nor does the February
21, 2018 judgment alter the court's ruling on whether Ms. McMillin was entitled to
have the money withdrawn from the court's registry. See In Re Succession of
Cannata, 2014-1546 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 7110/15); 180 So.3d 355, 371, writ denied,
2015-1686 (La. 10/30/15); 180 So.3d 303.
As to whether Mr. Breen and his attorney were notified that the February 8,
2018 judgment had been vacated, we again note that Mr. Breen attached to his
brief a letter from the deputy clerk of the 22nd JDC, which was addressed to one of
Ms. McMillin's attorneys, advising that the February 8, 2018 order on motion to
withdraw funds from the registry court was vacated by the trial court judge. This
same letter is also contained within the record. Mr. Breen alleges that he was
informed by the clerk's office that the February 8, 2018 judgment was vacated in-
house, and thus no notification was sent. However, it is clear from the record that
Ms. McMillin's attorneys received notice that the judgment was vacated, which
indicates that notification was sent. Mr. Breen's primary concern regarding notice
that the February 8, 2018 judgment was vacated appears to be that the alleged lack
of notice caused him to appeal the incorrect judgment. Despite this assertion, Mr.
Breen is currently before this court on appeal of the proper judgment - the
February 21, 2018 judgment. Considering the aforementioned, we find that this
assignment of error lacks merit.
Assignment of Error #5
In his fifth assignment of error, Mr. Breen argues that the trial court erred in
signing and submitting a subsequent motion to withdraw funds submitted on
February 21, 2018, without notifying Mr. Breen or his attorney.
12
The record contains a February 20, 2018 letter from one of Ms. McMillin's
attorneys informing the trial court that, pursuant to the ruling on February 8, 2018,
both parties had submitted proposed judgments and requesting that the trial court
sign the order that the trial court finds to be appropriate. This letter was also sent
to Mr. Breen's attorney. Further, the record contains a February 15, 2018 fax from
Mr. Breen's attorney to Ms. McMillin's attorney, followed by Mr. Breen's
proposed judgment and request for reconsideration; the certification of service on
that proposed judgment and request for reconsideration is dated February 15, 2018.
Finally, the Rule 9.5 Certificate attached to the February 21, 2018 judgment
certified that the proposed order was circulated to counsel for Mr. Breen via
facsimile on February 8, 2018, that a copy of the order was also forwarded to
counsel for Mr. Breen via Federal Express on February 8, 2018, that at least five
working days had elapsed before presentation to the court, and that no opposition
had been received. Thus, we find that Mr. Breen did have notice of the judgment,
signed February 21, 2018. This assignment of error lacks merit.
Assignment of Error #8
In his eighth assignment of error, Mr. Breen argues that the trial court failed
to require proper service on all above matters. Considering our findings for
assignments of error # 4 and # 5, we find that the trial court did require proper
service on the matters before us on appeal. To the extent that Mr. Breen is
referring to the service of the original 2001 petition, we again note that the default
judgment against Mr. Breen was affirmed by this court in McMillin, 925 So.2d
776, and that Mr. Breen previously admitted to being personally served. See Breen
v. McMillin, 2008 WL 2224864, at * 2-4. This assignment of error lacks merit.
DECREE
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Twenty-Second
Judicial District Court granting the motion to withdraw funds from the registry of
13
the court filed by Sarah McMillin, as independent administratix of the succession
of Allen McMillin is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellant,
Michael Breen.
AFFIRMED.
14
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NUMBER 2018 CA 0998
ALLEN McMILLIAN
VERSUS
MICHAEL BREEN, ET AL
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
GUIDRY, J., dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the opinion reached by the majority. It is my
opinion that the change in phraseology between the February 81h and the February
21st judgments constitutes a substantive change and would require further action
before being vacated. Substantive amendments to judgments can be made only
after a party has successfully litigated a timely application for new trial, an action
for nullity, or a timely appeal. Suprun v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 09-
1555 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/30/10); 40 So.3d 261, 268. Neither of the required
motions were filed before the vacating of the judgment at issue, therefore I do not
believe the trial judge was acting within his authority when he vacated the
February 81h judgement. Without a specific statutory grant of authority, the trial
court is limited to the general authorization for amending final judgments provided
in Code of Civil Procedure Article 1951. Article 1951 limits the amendment of
judgments to the correction of errors in calculation and alteration of phraseology,
but does not authorize a trial court to make substantive amendments to final
judgments. Courts have uniformly held substantive amendments to judgments
made without recourse to the proper procedures, i.e. by way of a timely motion for
1
a new trial or by appeal, to be absolute nullities. Bourgeois v. Kost, 02-2785 ( La.
5/20/03), 846 So. 2d 692, 696.
Specifically, I find that changing the language in the judgment from the
specific amount of $
182,99.99 to " the total amount in the registry of the court", an
undeterminable amount absent viewing an outside document, is substantive, and
further brings the question of whether the February 2l5t judgment is in fact a final
appealable judgment. The specific nature and amount of damages should be
determinable from a judgment so that a third person is able to determine from a
judgment the amount owed without reference to other documents. Advanced
Leveling & Concrete Sols. v. Lathan Co., Inc., 17-1250 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/20/18),
268 So. 3d 1044, 1046. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
2