SUCCESSION OF RICHARD E. O'KREPKI
PENELOPE BRODTMANN O'KREPKI BRUCE A. O'KREPKI, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE SUCCESSION OF RICHARD E. O'KREPKI
APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 742-430 C/W 749-364,
DIVISION "O" HONORABLE DANYELLE M. TAYLOR, JUDGE
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, BRUCE A. O'KREPKI,
INDIVIDUALLY Kevin M. Wheeler Donald J. Miester, Jr.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, BRUCE A. O'KREPKI, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE SUCCESSION OF
RICHARD E. O'KREPKI Richard C. Stanley Kathryn W. Munson.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, PENELOPE BRODTMANN
O'KREPKI Wade P. Webster.
composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Robert A. Chaisson, and
Stephen J. Windhorst
A. CHAISSON, JUDGE
A. O'Krepki, Independent Executor of the Succession of
Richard E. O'Krepki, appeals the December 15, 2016
judgment of the trial court denying Bruce O'Krepki's
dilatory exception of prematurity and ordering Penelope
O'Krepki to be placed in possession of certain legacies
made to her under the Last Will and Testament of Richard E.
O'Krepki. For the reasons that follow, we find that the
judgment on appeal is a partial judgment that has not been
designated as final pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B), and
this Court therefore currently lacks appellate jurisdiction
to address the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal without prejudice and remand the matter to the
trial court for further proceedings.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
facts of this succession dispute remain largely unchanged
from our review of this case in O'Krepki v.
O'Krepki, 16-50 (La.App. 5 Cir. 05/26/16), 193 So.3d
574. On October 28, 2016, Mrs. O'Krepki filed a petition
to be placed in possession of four usufructuary legacies left
to her in Richard O'Krepki's will. Bruce O'Krepki
filed an opposition to this petition as well as a dilatory
exception of prematurity. The trial court held a hearing on
the petition and the exception on November 15, 2016, and on
December 15, 2016 entered a Partial Judgment of Possession
overruling Bruce O'Krepki's dilatory exception of
prematurity and granting Mrs. O'Krepki's petition to
be placed in possession of the four usufructuary legacies. On
January 13, Bruce O'Krepki filed a motion for suspensive
appeal of the partial judgment of possession which the trial
Court cannot determine the merits of an appeal unless our
jurisdiction is properly invoked by a valid final judgment.
Jackson v. Sumlin, 16-96 (La.App. 5 Cir. 07/07/16),
196 So.3d 902, 903 (citing Input/Output Marine Sys. v.
Wilson Greatbatch Techs., Inc., 10-477 (La.App. 5 Cir
10/29/10), 52 So.3d 909, 915). La. C.C.P. art. 1915(B)
provides, in pertinent part:
(1) When a court renders a partial judgment . . . as to one
or more but less than all of the claims, demands, issues, or
theories against a party, whether in an original demand,
reconventional demand, cross-claim, third-party claim, or
intervention, the judgment shall not constitute a final
judgment unless it is designated as a final judgment by the
court after an express determination that there is no just
reason for delay.
(2) In the absence of such a determination and designation,
any such order or decision shall not constitute a final
judgment for the purpose of an immediate appeal and may be
revised at any time prior to the rendition of the judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.
review of the record, we find that the judgment appealed is
not a valid, final judgment and, therefore, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider the merits of Bruce
O'Krepki's appeal. While the December 15, 2016
judgment placed Mrs. O'Krepki in possession of the four
legacies bequeathed to her in Richard O'Krepki's
testament, there remain outstanding contested issues in the
Succession of Richard O'Krepki and Mrs.
O'Krepki's consolidated case against Bruce
O'Krepki. Bruce O'Krepki did not request that the
trial court make a determination and designation that the
judgment was final for ...