JOHN M. FLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ASCENSION CREDIT UNION
Appealed from the 23 rd Judicial District Court In
and for the Parish of Ascension State of Louisiana Case No.
115930 The Honorable Judge Alvin Turner, Jr., Presiding
D. Dillard Michael R. Rahmn Houston, Texas Counsel for
Plaintiff/Appellant John M. Floyd & Associates, Inc.
Eliza James David S. Moyer, LLC New Orleans, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Ascension Credit Union
BEFORE: HIGGINBOTHAM, PENZATO AND LANIER, JJ.
John M. Floyd & Associates, Inc. (JMFA), seeks review of
a summary judgment granted in favor of the
defendant/appellee, Ascension Credit Union (ACU), which found
that JMFA was not entitled to a $10, 000.00 retainer fee paid
by ACU, and that ACU was entitled to attorney fees and costs.
JMFA has appealed this judgment. Additionally, ACU filed a
motion for attorney fees with this court, seeking attorney
fees related to this appeal.
district court's "Judgment and Incorporated Reasons
on Ascension Credit Union's Motion for Summary
Judgment," the district court gives a recitation of the
merits of the case and the relief to which ACU is entitled,
concluding with "the Motion for Summary Judgment filed
by Ascension Credit Union is granted." (R. 95) Although
the parties have not raised the issue of this court's
subject matter jurisdiction over the instant appeal,
appellate courts have the duty to examine subject matter
jurisdiction sua sponte, even when the parties do
not raise the issue. State in interest of J.C,
2016-0138 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16), 196 So.3d 102, 106.
judgment shall be identified as such by appropriate language.
When written reasons for the judgment are assigned, they
shall be set out in an opinion separate from the judgment.
La. C.C.P. art. 1918. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however,
has held that the language contained in the second sentence
of La. C.C.P. art. 1918 is precatory and, as such, does not
render an otherwise complete and valid judgment invalid
merely because it contains surplus language. Himchman v.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union # 130, 292 So.2d 717, 720 (La. 1974);
Martin v. JKD Investments, LLC, 42, 196 (La.App. 2
Cir. 6/20/07), 961 So.2d 575, 578. A judgment should not be
nullified if it is otherwise complete and valid except for
the inclusion of reasons. Neighbors First for Bywater,
Inc. v. City of New Orleans/New Orleans City Council,
2017-0256 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/13/17), 2017WL6350339.
although the form and wording of judgments are not
sacramental, a valid final judgment must be precise,
definite, and certain. Old Republic Life Insurance
Company v. TransWood Inc., 2016-0552 (La.App. 1 Cir.
6/2/17), 222 So.3d 995, 1002. A final appealable judgment
must contain decretal language, and it must name the party in
favor of whom the ruling is ordered, the party against whom
the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted or
denied. Matter of Succession of Porche, 2016-0538
(La.App. 1 Cir. 2/17/17), 213 So.3d 401, 406. The specific
relief granted should be determinable from the judgment
without reference to an extrinsic source such as pleadings or
reasons for judgment. Schiff v. Pollard, 2016-0801
(La.App. 4 Cir. 6/28/17), 222 So.3d 867, 873.
instant case, no part of the writing could stand alone and
satisfy all the requirements of a final, appealable judgment.
In the absence of proper decretal language, the judgment does
not comply with La. C.C.P. art. 1918 and this court lacks
jurisdiction to review the merits of this appeal.
See Old Republic, 222 So.3d at 1002. The
appeal is therefore dismissed. As to ACU's motion for
attorney fees in connection with this appeal, we deny the
motion and assess all costs of this appeal to John M. Floyd
& Associates, Inc. This memorandum opinion is issued in
compliance with Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal Rule 2-16.1.B.
DISMISSED. MOTION DENIED.
 In a prior appeal of this case, JMFA
appealed the trial court's granting of a partial summary
judgment in favor of ACU concerning ACU's reconventional
demand for JMFA to return the $10, 000.00 retainer. In that
case, we also reviewed sua sponte whether this court
had subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal of the
partial summary judgment. We found the judgment did not meet
the requirements of a partial final judgment under La. C.C.P.
art. 1915 because it was not expressly designated by the
trial court that there was no just reason for delay. See La.
C.C.P. art. 1915(B); see alsoVan ex rel. White
v. Davis, 2000-0206 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/16/01), 808 So.2d
478, 483. Therefore, we dismissed the ...