Full Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RFMSI 2005S7 VERSUS WALTER C. DUMAS JUDGMENT RENDERED: f 10V -,, 0 6 2026 Appealed from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge - State of Louisiana Docket Number 610504 - Section 22 The Honorable Beau Higginbotham, Presiding Judge Walter C. Dumas APPELLANT Baton Rouge, Louisiana DEFENDANT— Pro se Robert H. Ford COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE Houston, Texas PLAINTIFF— U. S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 200557 BEFORE: THERIOT, GREENE, AND EDWARDS, J.T. EDWARDS, J. Appellant challenges the district court' s denial of his ( 1) " Emergency Motion for the Trial [ Court] to Issue Two Separate Judgments" (" emergency motion"); and 2) " Motion to Annull [ sic], Set -- Aside, Vacate the Void Ab Initio February 28, 2022 Amended Final Judgment" (" motion to annul"). For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm. This litigation has a long, complex history, including several prior appeals and writ applications to this court. The following includes the facts relevant to this appeal, taken in large part from U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 2005S7 v. Dumas, 20? 2- 0604 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 3/ 23), 363 So. 3d 1232, 1234, writ denied, 2023- 00733 1, La. 9/ 26/ 23), 370 So. 3d 478 (" U.S. Bank III"). In March 2012, U. S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 200557 (" U. S. Bank") filed a petition to enforce security interest by executory process (" petition for foreclosure") against Defendant, Walter C. Dumas, alleging that Dumas defaulted on a promissory note secured by a mortgage on certain immovable property located in East Baton Rouge Parish. U.S. Bank attached the original note and a certified copy of the mortgage to its petition for foreclosure! U.S. Bank National Association v. Dumas, 2012- 1902 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 4/ 3/ 14), 144 So. 3d 29, 33, writ denied, 2014- 0943 ( La. 8/ 25/ 14), 147 So. 3d 1119 (" U.S. Bank I"). In response to the petition for foreclosure, Dumas filed a petition for injunction seeking to arrest the seizure and sale of the property and requesting 1 The note was signed by Dumas and was made payable to the order of the " Lender," identified as Homecomings Financial Network, Inc." The note was indorsed on behalf of Homecomings Financial with the following notation: " WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORPORATION[.]" Residential Funding subsequently indorsed the note to " U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee WITHOUT RECOURSE." See U. S. Bank I, 144 So. 3d at 33. The mortgage " secure[ d] to Lender ... the repayment of the Loan" and provided that Dumas " does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to [ Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (" MERS")] ... and to the successors and assigns of MFRS, with power of sale" the subject property. U.S. Bank I, 144 So. 3d at 33- 34. 4 damages and attorney' s fees. The district court granted Dumas' s petition for injunction, and U. S. Bank appealed. U. S. Bank I, 144 So. 3d at 32- 33. This court reversed, determining that U.S. Bank was " the proper plaintiff in this proceeding" and that it was entitled to proceed via executory process.2 U.S. Bank I, 144 So.3d at 37, 46. On April 29, 2020, U. S. Bank filed a motion for summary judgment Dumas requesting summary judgment in its favor on its petition for foreclosure. opposed the motion for summary judgment and filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no right of action. U.S. Bank III, 363 So. 3d at 1234. After a 2020: hearing, the district court signed two judgments on December 10, one overruling Dumas' s exception raising the objection of no right of action and another granting U.S. Bank' s motion for summary judgment. U.S. Bank III, 363 So. 3d at 1234. Dumas appealed the judgment granting summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.' U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 200557 v. Dumas, 2021- 0585 ( La. App. 1 Cir.. 12/ 22/ 21), 340 So. 3d 246, 247 (" U.S. Bank II"). Dumas also filed an exception raising the objection of prescription directly with this court, which this court denied. U. S. Bank III, 363 So. 3d at 1234- 35. On appeal, this court determined the December 10, 2020 judgment was not final and appealable because the, judgment lacked specificity in the amounts due and dismissed the appeal. U.S. Bank II, 340 So. 3d at 251. Thereafter, the district court 2 After U.S. Bank I, Dumas filed a second petition for injunction to arrest the seizure and sale of his property for different reasons. The district court granted that injunction and converted the matter to ordinary proceedings because " U. S. Bank' s filing did not meet the strict requirements for sale by executory process." U.S. Bank III, 363 So. 3d at 1234. U. S. Bank did not seek review of that ruling. 3 Dumas also sought supervisory review of the district court' s judgment overruling his exception raising the objection of no right of action, and this court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over the matter. See U. S, Bank National Association as Trustee for REMSI 200557 v. Dumas, 2020- 1311 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1/ 28/ 21), 2021 WL 296687 ( unpublished writ action), writs denied, stay denied sub nom., U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMSI 200557 v. Dumas, 2021- 00246, 2021- 00245 ( La. 2/ 20/ 21), 311 So. 3d 351, 352. K signed an amended judgment on February 28, 2022, granting the motion for summary judgment and ordering Dumas to pay U.S. Bank the principal sum of 684, 263. 55, accrued interest, and escrow overdrafts, among other amounts. U. S. Bank 111, 363 So. 3d at 1235. The judgment also ordered that the mortgage securing the described debt in favor of U. S. Bank be recognized and declared enforceable in accordance with the law and with preference and priority over all inferior encumbrances to the property. Dumas then appealed the February 28, 2022 amended judgment, raising several assignments of error, one of which challenged the district court' s judgment overruling his exception raising the objection of no right of action. U. S. Bank 111, 363 So. 3d at 1235. On appeal, this court affirmed the district court' s judgment granting summary judgment in U.S. Bank' s favor. U.S. Bank 111, 363 So. 3d at 1240. As to Dumas' s argument regarding his exception raising the objection of no right of action, this court stated, in pertinent part: W] e find no merit to Mr. Dumas' s argument that U.S. Bank has no right of action to enforce the note. The issue of whether U.S. Bank was the proper plaintiff was previously determined in the 2012 appeal in this case, where this Court concluded that U.S. Bank has the right to enforce the instrument. This Court' s finding constitutes law ofthe case. U. S. Bank 111, 363 So. 3d at 1. 239 ( citing U.S. Bank 1, 144 So. 3d at 45). The Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs on September 26, 2023. See U.S. Bank 111, 370 So. 3d 478. Nevertheless, nearly two years later, on September 16, 2025, Dumas filed a motion to annul the February 28,, 2022 amended judgment. Dumas asserted that the February 28, 2022 amended judgment, which was affirmed by this court on appeal in U.S. Bank 111, should be annulled because U. S. Bank was not a corporation authorized to do business in East Baton Rouge Parish as it asserted in its petition for foreclosure. Therefore, Dumas argued that U.S. Bank is an unincorporated II association and that U.S. Bank must be represented in this litigation by its president or authorized officer pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 689.4 U.S. Bank filed an opposition to the motion to annul. Therein, U.S. Bank urged the district court to deny, the motion to annul because Dumas attempted to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of legal capacity, right, or authority to pursue foreclosure on at least four prior occasions. U. S. Bank also noted that the basis for Dumas' s motion to annul is not grounds for nullity ofjudgment under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2001, et ,sect. Dumas also filed the emergency motion in May 2024. The emergency motion concerned the district court' s April 30, 2024 judgment, which disposed of two separate motions following a March 18, 2024 hearing: ( 1) Dumas' s " Petition for Injunction to Arrest Seizure and Sale of Immovable Property with Stay Order, to Dismiss Writ of Fieri Facias, Damages, and Attorney Fees" (" 2023 petition for injunction" )5; and ( 2) U. S. Bank' s " Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action" filed in response to a 2023 petition for nullity' ( which is a different pleading than the motion to annul currently before this court on appeal) filed by Dumas. The April 30, 2024 judgment denied and dismissed Dumas' s 2023 petition for injunction with prejudice, sustained U.S. Bank' s exception, and dismissed Dumas' s 2023 petition 4 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 689 states, " An unincorporated association has the procedural capacity to sue to enforce its rights in its own name, and appears through and is represented by its president or other authorized officer." s In accordance with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 2127 and 2128, Dumas designated portions of the record to constitute the record on appeal. See also Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal, Rules 2- 1 to 2- 1. 16. The 2023 petition for injunction is not included in the designated record. 6 Dumas' s 2023 petition for nullity was based on his assertion that the February 28, 2022 amended judgment was obtained by fraud and/ or ill practices because ( 1) U. S. Bank " was not a foreign or domestic corporation when it filed [ s] uit" and ( 2) the legal description of the immovable property in the amended judgment did not match the property description on the 2021 " Notarial Act of Correction" to the mortgage. 5 for nullity with prejudice.' In Dumas' s emergency motion, he urged the district court to vacate the April 30, 2024 judgment and to issue two separate judgments in its place, one for each ruling memorialized in the April 30, 2024 judgment. According to Dumas, the motions disposed of in the April 30, 2024 judgment had differing captions ( though filed in the same district court docket number), thereby creating two separate cases, and " signing only one judgment ... has limited post -trial relief available to Walter C. Dumas." U.S. Bank opposed the emergency motion, arguing that "[ t] he fact that Dumas— on his own volition and without obtaining leave of court— reversed the order of the parties' names [ in the caption on his petition for nullity] is immaterial and insufficient to create a ` separate case."' The district court held a hearing on the emergency motion and the motion to annul on November 3, 2025. Neither party offered or introduced any evidence into the record at the hearing. The district court ultimately denied both motions from the bench and ordered a judgment to be prepared and circulated. The district court signed a judgment denying both motions on December 11, 2025. 8 It is from this December 11, 2025 judgment Dumas now appeals. JURISDICTION On May 8, 2026, this court issued a rule to show cause as to whether this appeal should be dismissed.' ' specifically, this court noted that the judgment on appeal appears to be an interlocutory, non -appealable ruling. In their show cause The April 30, 2024 judgment also vacated and dismissed the November 29, 2022 injunction prohibiting the sale of the property. s The district court' s December 11, 2025 judgment also denied Dumas' s motion to dismiss U.S. Bank' s opposition to his motion to annul. Nevertheless, Dumas does not assign error to the denial of the motion to dismiss, and as such, it is not addressed in this opinion. The show cause order incorrectly identifies the judgment on appeal as the " February 11, 2025" judgment. P briefs, both parties contend the December 11, 2025 judgment is interlocutory and not appealable. We disagree. This court' s appellate jurisdiction only extends to final judgments. Jones v. Fogg, 2024- 1048 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 5/ 30/25), 413 So. 3d 580, 583, writ denied, 2025- 01069 ( La. 11/ 19/ 25), 420 So. 3d 1186. A final judgment determines the merits in whole or in part, while an interlocutory judgment does not determine the merits, but only preliminary matters in the course of the action. See La. C. C. P. art. 1841. 10 A final judgment is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law. La. C. C. P. art. 2083( A). In contrast, an interlocutory judgment is appealable only when expressly provided by law. La. C. C. P. art. 2083( C). Dumas' s motion to annul does not explicitly state any recognized basis under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2001, et seq. for nullity of a final judgment. Nevertheless, at the hearing on his motion to annul, Dumas repeatedly stated that the district court did not have jurisdiction over U.S. Bank' s suit because U.S. Bank allegedly was not a corporation and was not properly represented in the district court proceedings. 10 2026 La. Acts, No. 127, § 1 ( eff. Aug. 1, 2026) amended and reenacted Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1841 and 2083( 13). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1841( 13) and ( C) now provides: 13)( 1) A judgment that determines the merits in whole is a final judgment. 2) A judgment that determines the merits in part may be a partial final judgment in accordance with Article 11) 15( A) or an interlocutory judgment in accordance with Article 1915( C). C) A judgment that does not «Jetermine the merits but determines only preliminary matters in the course of the action is an interlocutory judgment. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2083( A) and ( 13) now provides: A) A final judgment is appeallable in all causes in which appeals are given by law, whether rendered after hearing, by default, or by reformation under Article 1814. 13) A partial final judgment rendered in accordance with Article 1915( A) is appealable in all causes in which appeals are given by law. Other partial final judgments are appealable only; when expressly provided by law. 7 A judgment rendered by a district court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit may -be annulled for vices of form. See La. C. C. P. art. 2002( A)( 3). A vice of form renders the judgment an absolute nullity. In re J.E.T., 2016- 0384 ( La. App. I Cir. 10/ 31/ 16), 211 So. 3d 575, 581. Absolute nullities may be asserted at any time, in a collateral proceeding, and before any court. See La. C. C. P. art. 2002( B); In re J.E. T., 211 So. 3d at 581. It is well- settled that an absolutely null judgment may be collaterally attacked by any procedural means, including a contradictory motion or rule. See In re J.E. T., 211 So. 3d at 581. Although a judgment that denies a motion is inherently interlocutory, subject only to discretionary review by appellate courts through their supervisory jurisdiction, see Jones, 413 So. 3d at 583, when the judgment denying the motion to annul disposes of all remaining issues between the parties, the judgment should be considered a final appealable judgment, see Succession of Cotaya, 2024- 38 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 12/ 5/ 24), 409 So. 3d 860, 864--65. See also La. C. C. P. art. 1841; Bennett v. Laperouse and Son, Ltd., 2009- 1099 ( La. App. I Cir. 2/ 12/ 10), 35 So. 3d 364, 366 holding the denial of a motion to enforce settlement agreement was a final and appealable judgment because the judgment disposed of all remaining issues in the case and thereby concluded the litigation). In this case, the December 11, 2025 judgment determined the merits of Dumas' s claim that the February 28, 2022 judgment is absolutely null, thereby concluding the litigation. Accordingly, the ruling is a final judgment over which this court has appellate jurisdiction. See La. C. C. P. art. 1841. In addition, when an unrestricted appeal is taken from a final judgment, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse interlocutory rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to review of the final judgment appealed. Castro v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, 2025- 0964 ( La. App. I Cir. 6/ 12/ 26), 436 So. 3d 635, 642. Therefore, we also consider the merits of Dumas' s emergency motion. DISCUSSION Motion to Annul The only remedy available to a party seeking to set aside a final judgment is for a claim in nullity. In re J.E.T., 211 So. 3d at 581. The nullity of a final judgment may be demanded for vices of either form or substance. La. C. C. P. art. 2001. A judgment shall be annulled for vices of form if it is rendered ( 1) against an incompetent person not represented as required by law; ( 2) against a defendant who has not been served with process as required by law and who has not waived objection to jurisdiction, or against whom a valid default judgment as not been taken; or ( 3) by a court that does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. La. C. C. P. art. 2002( A). In his motion to annul., Dumas contended that the proceeding was " illegal" because U.S. Bank " is not a corporation authorized to do business in East Baton Rouge Parish" and is not personally represented by its " president or an authorized officer of U. S. Bank." As previously noted, Dumas' s motion to annul can be construed to be a request that the February 28, 2022 amended judgment be declared absolutely null pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2002( A)(3). Neither the lack of procedural capacity to file a lawsuit11 nor the failure to state a right of action equates to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Further, Dumas' s motion to annul cannot be construed to invoke any other vices of form or substance that would entitle him to have the February 28, 2022 amended judgment nullified. We find this assignment of error lacks merit. Dumas waived any objection to U.S. Bank' s lack of procedural capacity. Procedural capacity to prosecute the claims asserted in the petition is presumed unless challenged by the dilatory exception raising the objection of lack of procedural capacity. See La. C. C. P. arts. 855 & 926. Dilatory exceptions must be pleaded prior to or in the answer or prior to or along with the filing of any pleading seeking any relief (other than certain enumerated instances that do not apply here); otherwise, they are waived. See La. C. C. P. arts. 926( B) & 928( A); Martin v. Board of Adjustment, 2024- 0316 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 6/ 24), 2024 WL 5000147, * 4 ( unpublished). Dumas filed numerous peremptory exceptions during the course of the litigation but did not raise the dilatory exception raising the objection of lack of procedural capacity. Therefore, it is waived. 0 Emergency Motion In his emergency motion. Dumas argues the district court erred by dismissing both the 2023 petition for injunction and the 2023 petition for nullity in a single judgment. Dumas filed both the 2023 petition for injunction and the 2023 petition for nullity in the same district court docket number. However, Dumas captioned the petition for injunction as " IJ. S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMS12005S7 v. Walter C. Dumas" and captioned the 2023 petition for nullity as Walter C. Dumas v. U. S. Bank National Association as Trustee for RFMS12005S7[.]" According to Dumas, his decision to reverse the case caption created a separate case, requiring two separate judgments for each dismissal. The 2023 petition for nullity, which contained the reversed caption, was based on Dumas' s contention that the February 28, 2022 amended judgment should be annulled for vices of substance, i.e., it is a relative nullity. See Meadows v. Adams, 2018- 1544 ( La. App. I Cir. 11/ 9/ 20), 316 So. 3d 5, 12. Relatively null judgments must be attacked directly and within the time limitation set forth in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2004„ A direct action can be brought by filing a separate proceeding or by the filing of a pleading in the same proceeding as that in which the offending judgment was rendered. Meadows, 316 So. 3d at 12. When Dumas filed his 2023 petition for nullity, he chose to file it in the same proceeding as the offending" February 28, 2022 amended judgment, which is further demonstrated by the fact that the same docket number was typewritten on the document. There is no prohibition against the district court disposing of more than one motion filed in the same docket number in a single judgment. Therefore, we find no error in the form of the district court' s April 30, 2024 judgment disposing of both the 2023 petition for nullity and the 2023 petition for injunction. This assignment of error is without merit. 10 FOX4 IN 01 For the above and foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court' s December 11, 2025 judgment. All Costs Of this appeal are assessed to Appellant, Walter C. Dumas. AFFIRMED. 11 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR RFMSI 2005S7 VERSUS WALTER C. DUMAS THERIOT, J., concurring with reasons. I agree with the majority' s analysis and conclusion with respect to Mr. Dumas' s assignment of errors raised on appeal. However, I write separately because I would award damages for the filing of a frivolous appeal under the circumstances of this case. An appellate court may award damages for frivolous appeal when there is no serious legal question, when the appeal is taken solely for the purpose of delay, or when it is evident that the appellant' s counsel does not seriously believe in the position advocated. La. C. C. P. at t-. 2164; Lucien v. Carter, 2017- 1069, p. 8 ( La.App. I Cir. 5/ 31/ 18), 251 So. 3d 540, 545. Reviewing the lengthy history of this litigation, it is clear that this appeal is yet another attempt by Mr. Dumas to delay the proceeding and to waste the time and resources of this Court and the opposing party. Furthermore, Mr. Dumas does not have a serious legal question for this court to consider. This appeal is unquestionably frivolous. Accordingly, I find that damages for filing a frivolous appeal are warranted in this case, and I would impose sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal pursuant to La. C. C. P. art. 2164 and Rule 2- 19 of the Uniform Rules—Court of Appeal.