APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 716-293, DIVISION
"P" HONORABLE LEE V. FAULKNER, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, MORGAN PALMISANO Mark E.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, JENNIFER NAUMAN-ANDERSON
Gerald J. Calogero.
composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker, Robert A.
Chaisson, and Hans J. Liljeberg
J. LILJEBERG, JUDGE
Jennifer Nauman-Anderson ("Ms. Anderson"), seeks
review of the trial court's June 1, 2017 judgment denying
her Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Finding that we
lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this matter, we
dismiss the appeal.
22, 2012, plaintiff, Morgan Palmisano, filed a "Petition
on Open Account" against Ms. Anderson, seeking repayment
of money he allegedly loaned to her pursuant to an oral loan
agreement. The parties entered into a Confidential Settlement
Agreement ("the agreement") on February 13, 2016.
The agreement provided that Ms. Anderson would make three
payments, totaling $13,000, to Mr. Palmisano on or before the
dates specified in the agreement. The agreement further
provided that within 14 days after receiving the final
payment, Mr. Palmisano would file a motion to dismiss his
lawsuit against Ms. Anderson.
April 7, 2017, Ms. Anderson filed a "Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement," alleging that Mr. Palmisano
breached the agreement by failing to file a motion to dismiss
his lawsuit within 14 days after Ms. Anderson made her final
payment. In this motion, Ms. Anderson sought dismissal of the
lawsuit, as well as an award of attorney fees and costs. This
motion came before the trial court for hearing on May 31,
2017. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took
the matter under advisement.
1, 2017, the trial court rendered a judgment denying Ms.
Anderson's Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. Also
on June 1, 2017, the trial judge signed an order dismissing
all claims in this matter with prejudice, pursuant to a
"Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice" filed by Mr.
Palmisano. Ms. Anderson filed a Motion for Devolutive Appeal,
seeking review of the judgment denying her Motion to Enforce
Settlement. The trial court granted the motion on June 23,
C.C.P. art. 1915B(1) provides that when a judgment is
rendered "as to one or more but less than all of the
claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party,"
the judgment shall not constitute a final judgment unless it
is designated as such by the trial court. La. C.C.P. art.
1915B(2) provides that in the absence of such a designation,
any decision which adjudicates fewer than all of the claims
"shall not constitute a final judgment for the purpose
of an immediate appeal."
Johnson v. Kerry Brown, L.L.C., 06-925 (La. App. 5
Cir. 3/13/07), 956 So.2d 3, 5, this Court found that a
judgment denying a motion to enforce a settlement agreement
is an interlocutory judgment that is not appealable. Ms.
Anderson acknowledges the holding of the Johnson
case in her supplemental appellant brief filed with this
Court. However, Ms. Anderson asserts that the judgment
denying her Motion to Enforce Settlement is appealable at
this time, because interlocutory judgments may be reviewed by
appeal after a final judgment has been rendered. In support
of her argument, Ms. Anderson cites this Court's opinion
in In re: Succession of Spitzfaden, 12-895 (La. App.
5 Cir. 2/21/13), 113 So.3d 1103, writ denied,
13-1316 (La. 9/20/13), 123 So.3d 177. Ms. Anderson's
interpretation of our holding in Spitzfaden is
Spitzfaden, a legatee sought review of the trial
court's judgment denying her "Objection to Interim
Accounting." However, the judgment did not adjudicate
all of the claims or issues in the matter and the trial court
did not certify the judgment as final for purposes of an
immediate appeal, in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 1915B.
Id. The executor of the succession filed a motion to
dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. This
Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding
that the judgment was interlocutory and not appealable.
Id. at 1104. This Court noted that interlocutory
judgments may be reviewed after a final judgment is rendered,
citing Sporl v. Sporl, 00-1321 (La. App. 5 Cir.
5/30/01), 788 So.2d 682, 684, writ denied, 01-1926
(La. 10/12/01), 799 So.2d 506, wherein this Court stated:
When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment,
the appellant is entitled to a review of all adverse
interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to the
review of the correctness of the final ...