 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Petitjean v. City of Rayne11/10/2004
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
The Plaintiff-Appellants, Martin Petitjean II, Martin Petitjean III, Desiree Sainte Therese Petitjean Casey, Yvette Sainte Claire Petitjean, Monique d'Youville Petitjean Benoit, Jeanne Marie Petitjean, and Winson J. Petitjean, Jr. (the Petitjeans), appeal the trial court's denial of their motion to enforce a provision in a previous judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2000, the Petitjeans filed a suit against the City of Rayne (the City) seeking to have the City remove certain obstructions and encroachments on their right of passage over City property. As a result of that suit, a stipulated judgment was rendered on August 12, 2002, ordering the City to remove a fence from the right of passage; to "clear and grade the designated right of passage as a full thirty (30) foot passage for its entire length, without any encroachment whatever from any portion of any fence, gate or other obstruction . . . ;" "to provide a fence along the Eastern Boundary of the right of passage"; and preventing the City from interfering with the Petitjeans' private railroad crossing servitude. That judgment became final on October 22, 2002.
In October 2003, the Petitjeans filed a motion to enforce the judgment, alleging that the City had not cleared and graded the passage way nor removed its fence from therefrom. After a hearing, the trial court rendered judgment ordering the City to move the gate located within the thirty foot right of passage but refused to enforce its previous judgment requiring that the right of passage be cleared and graded. The court further ordered the costs of the proceedings to be shared between the parties. In a minute entry, the court further explained its ruling:
he gate located within the thirty (30) foot passage must be moved by the City of Rayne in order to comply with the above-quoted language.
After a physical inspection of the subject property, the Court finds that once the gate has been moved, any grading and/or clearing of the property by the defendant will not be necessary.
The Petitjeans appeal this ruling asserting that the trial court erred in failing to enforce the original judgment as written and in casting them with costs. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse.
DISCUSSION
The original judgment in this matter was rendered on August 12, 2002. Nothing in the record indicates that a motion for new trial or an appeal was filed. Therefore, according to the record, the judgment became final on October 22, 2002. On October 3, 2003, more than eleven months after the judgment became final, the Petitjeans moved to enforce the judgment. The trial court took that opportunity to nullify a substantive portion of its earlier judgment.
Once the delays for appeal have expired without action, the judgment is final and definitive. See Costello v. Hardy, 03-1146 (La. 1/21/04), 864 So.2d 129. Louisiana Civil Code article 1951 provides that:
A final judgment may be amended by the trial court at any time, with or without notice, on its own motion or on motion of any party:
(1) To alter the phraseology of the judgment, but not the substance; or
(2) To correct errors of calculation.
(Emphasis added.)
A final judgment may only be amended to effect a substantive change via application for new trial, action for nullity, or timely appeal. State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. A.P., 02-2372 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/03), 858 So.2d 498.
La. C.C.P. art.1951 does not permit the trial court to substantively alter a final judgment even if the amendment merely expre
Page 1 2 Louisiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|