LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING LLC v. KENYETTA NASHAY LATHERS (2026)

This matter is before us on appeal by defendant, Kenyetta Nashay Lathers, from a judgment of the trial court denying her motion to vacate, for temporary restraining order, and for preliminary injunction. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 30, 2022, Kenyetta Nashay Lathers, executed a promissory note in favor of Nations Lending Corporation (“Nations”), which was secured by a mortgage on a home located at 30350 Red Cardinal Street in Denham Springs, Louisiana, in the amount of $284,747.00, to mature on October 1, 2052. The mortgage was recorded in Livingston Parish on October 3, 2022, at File Number 1048799, Book 3272, Page 904. Nations subsequently endorsed the note to Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Lakeview”) by an allonge payable to Lakeview. Thereafter, Ms. Lathers and Lakeview, through its agent, LoanCare, LLC, executed a “Loan Modification Agreement” on August 14, 2023, which reduced the balance to $208,253.23 and extended the maturity date to August 1, 2063. The modification agreement was recorded in Livingston Parish on August 22, 2023, at File Number 1070311, Book 3355, Page 129.

On May 31, 2024, Lakeview filed a petition for executory process against Ms. Lathers contending that the monthly installment due on September 1, 2023, and all subsequent installments were past due and unpaid. Lakeview thus sought an order of executory process and writ of seizure and sale seeking to collect all amounts due, including: (1) principal, interest, and attorney's fees; (2) all costs and expenses in enforcing the note, as well as other charges and expenses due under its terms; and (3) all court costs. The trial court granted the petition entering an order of executory process and writ of seizure and sale on June 10, 2024. The home was then sold at a Sheriff's sale to Tim and Kelly Rogers on March 13, 2025.¹ The sheriff's sale was recorded on March 13, 2025, in the Livingston Parish conveyance records at File Number 1103976, Book 1550, Page 13.

Following the sheriff's sale of the property, Ms. Lathers filed various pleadings. On March 17, 2025, Ms. Lathers filed a “Motion to Vacate Foreclosure Sale and Stay Eviction” alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), violations of the loan servicing requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), procedural defects in the foreclosure process, and fraud, ill practices, and violations of due process. Therein, Ms. Lathers requested the issuance of a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 3610, prohibiting any party from taking possession of the property pending resolution of the motion to vacate. Ms. Lathers subsequently filed supplemental motions to dismiss and/or vacate the foreclosure sale and stay eviction on March 18, 2025, March 24, 2025, and March 25, 2025, alleging additional grounds.

Following a hearing on April 7, 2025, the trial court signed a judgment on May 5, 2025, denying Ms. Lathers’ motion to vacate and denying her requests for issuance of a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Ms. Lathers subsequently filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, Ms. Lathers filed a motion for suspensive appeal on May 21, 2025.

DISCUSSION 2

At the outset, we must consider the timeliness of this appeal. See Puff It Up, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge, 2024-0479 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/27/24), 404 So. 3d 60, 62. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612 governs the appeal of judgments relating to preliminary injunctions. While an appeal can be taken from an order or judgment denying a preliminary injunction as a matter of right, an aggrieved party must appeal, and any bond required must be furnished, within fifteen days from the date of the signing of the judgment, not the mailing of the notice of judgment. La. C.C.P. art. 3612(B) and (C); First Guaranty Bank v. Perilloux, 498 So. 2d 239, 240 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986). The delay for taking an appeal of an order or judgment denying a preliminary injunction is not affected by the filing of a motion for new trial. Stevens v. St. Tammany Parish Government, 2016-0197 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1/18/17), 212 So. 3d 562, 566. Unlike an order or judgment relating to a preliminary injunction, there shall be no appeal from an order relating to a temporary restraining order. La. C.C.P. art. 3612(A).

Appellate courts do not acquire jurisdiction of an appeal that is not timely perfected. Three Rivers Commons Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Grodner, 2024-0737 (La. App. 1st Cir. 7/31/25), 417 So. 3d 1256, 1259, writ denied, 2025-01167 (La. 12/9/25), 422 So. 3d 295, citing Bridges v. Baton Rouge General Medical Center, 2020-0270 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/30/20), 317 So. 3d 662, 684, writ denied, 2021-00144 (La. 4/7/21), 313 So. 3d 985. Appeal delays are not prescriptive periods that are subject to interruption; these time limits are jurisdictional. See Three Rivers Commons Owners’ Association, Inc., 417 So. 3d at 1259. An appellant's failure to file a timely appeal is a jurisdictional defect, in that neither the court of appeal nor any other court has the jurisdictional power and authority to reverse, revise, or modify a final judgment after the time for filing an appeal has lapsed. Phillips v. Exxon Chemical Louisiana, LLC, 2022-1290 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/23/23), 370 So. 3d 738, 741, writ denied, 2023-01122 (La. 11/21/23), 373 So. 3d 451.

The judgment denying Ms. Lathers’ request for a preliminary injunction was signed on May 5, 2025. Thus, Ms. Lathers had until May 20, 2025 to perfect her appeal. See La. C.C.P. art. 3612. Accordingly, Ms. Lathers’ motion for appeal filed on May 21, 2025, was untimely. See Zulu v. Washington, 487 So. 2d 1248, 1249 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1986); Jodi Properties, LLC v. Cochran, 2015-1327 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/3/16), 2016 WL 3134507, *2 (unpublished). Because Ms. Lathers failed to timely perfect her appeal, this court has no jurisdiction. See Zulu, 487 So. 2d at 1249; Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons Partnership, 264 So. 2d 304, 314 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1972), on rehearing (per curiam), writs issued sub nom., Wright v. Mark C. Smith & Sons, 262 La. 1069, 1070, 266 So. 2d 213, 213 (1972), and affirmed, 283 So. 2d 85 (La. 1973) (“We deem it elementary that failure to perfect an appeal, with the attendant result that jurisdiction never vests in the appellate court, is tantamount to not taking an appeal at all.”). An appeal can be dismissed at any time for a lack of jurisdiction of the appellate court. La. C.C.P. art. 2162; see also Three Rivers Commons Owners’ Association, Inc., 417 So. 3d at 1260. Because this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we must dismiss it as untimely.³

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, the show cause order is recalled and the appeal is dismissed. The motions to dismiss are granted, albeit for the reasons set forth herein. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Kenyetta Nashay Lathers.

SHOW CAUSE ORDER RECALLED; MOTIONS TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tim Rogers also appears in the record and in brief as William Timothy Rogers.

3.   See also Morris v. Translates Petroleum, Inc., 258 La. 311, 320-321, 246 So. 2d 183, 186 (1971):Since the controverted judgment was a ‘judgment relating to a preliminary injunction,[’] an appeal ‘must be taken and a bond furnished within fifteen days from the date of the order or judgment’ as Article 3612 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires. Having failed to appeal timely, intervenors may not assert rights upon which a timely appeal depends by an application to the Court of Appeal for review under its supervisory jurisdiction after the delays for appeal have expired. For the Courts of Appeal to grant supervisory jurisdiction under these circumstances would render laws prescribing delays and procedure for appeals meaningless. Such a procedure would moreover impair the finality which attaches to judgments and the vested interests which accrue once the delays for appeal have elapsed.

MILLER, J.