text:
    Jerry PHILLIPS Jr. v. SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
    No. 2013 CA 0285.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2013.

      Jeffrey I. Mandel, Metairie, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellant, Sanderson Farms, Inc.
    Ted Williams, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee, Jerry Phillips, Jr.
    Before KUHN, HIGGINBOTHAM, and THERIOT, JJ.
   THERIOT, J.

| /.The appellant, Sanderson Farms, Inc. (“Sanderson”), appeals the judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation (“OWC”) in favor of the appellee, Jerry Phillips, Jr. Mr. Phillips was awarded supplemental earnings benefits (“SEB”), with penalties and attorney fees assessed against Sander-son. For the following reasons, we affirm and award Mr. Phillips additional attorney fees on appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Phillips, while in the course and scope of his employment with Sanderson, lacerated and partially amputated his left index finger on August 25, 2011, while cleaning a “gizzard 2” eviscerating machine. Mr. Phillips had been briefed on Sanderson’s safety policies in an orientation given to him on his hiring, which included procedures for cleaning and maintenance of machinery. On the date of the injury, prior to cleaning the machine, Mr. Phillips did not “lock and tag out” the machine, clearly in violation of the company’s safety policy.

Immediately after the accident, Mr. Phillips was brought to the on-site nurse who bandaged his finger and sent Mr. Phillips to North Oaks Medical Center for further treatment. Sanderson paid all costs of the medical treatment. Mr. Phillips returned to work at light or modified duty, which was to last until October 27, 2011, at which time Mr. Phillips was designated to return to full duty.

Upon his return to work the day following the injury, Mr. Phillips was informed that his employment with Sanderson had been terminated due to what Sanderson claimed was his gross violation of the safety policy. Although Sanderson had a return-to-work policy in place, Mr. Phillips was | ¡¡unable to benefit from the policy due to his termination. Sanderson refused to pay Mr. Phillips any wage benefits.

Mr. Phillips filed a disputed claim for compensation on September 14, 2011. He prayed for SEB as well as penalties and attorney fees to be assessed against Sand-erson. In its answer, Sanderson claimed that Mr. Phillips had received all workers’ compensation benefits to which he was entitled under the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law, and that since Mr. Phillips’s employment was legitimately terminated due to his violation of the promulgated safety policy, he was not entitled to SEB or any other benefits.

Trial on the matter was held on September 17, 2012, and the OWC found that Mr. Phillips was entitled to SEB from August 25, 2011, to October 27, 2011. Further, the OWC found that Sanderson’s refusal to award SEB warranted the assessment of penalties and attorney fees against Sand-erson, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1201(F). In its reasons for judgment, the OWC stated that Sanderson “can not refuse to pay workers’ compensation indemnity benefits based on a ‘gross safety violation’ that is the accident itself.” Sanderson timely filed the instant appeal. Mr. Phillips timely answered the appeal, and requested additional attorney fees and costs for work related to this appeal.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Sanderson argues the OWC erred in finding that Mr. Phillips was entitled to SEB despite the availability of a modified duty job at no loss of wages for which he would have been eligible but for his gross safety violation.

|4Sanderson further argues the OWC erred in finding that despite Sanderson’s acceptance of this claim and payment of medical benefits, and its good faith reliance on the consistent application of its safety policy in the denial of SEB, Sander-son did not reasonably controvert this claim, thereby subjecting Sanderson to the award of attorney fees and penalties.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Factual findings in a workers’ compensation case are subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 96-2840, p. 7 (La.7/1/97), 696 So.2d 551, 556. The OWC’s determination of whether an employer or insurer should be cast with penalties and attorney fees in a workers’ compensation action is essentially a question of fact and is also subject to the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Russell v. Regency Hosp. of Covington, LLC, 08-0538, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/14/08), 998 So.2d 301, 306; Goodman v. Manno Electric, Inc., 01-2863, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 835 So.2d 697, 701.

DISCUSSION

At trial, Sanderson presented plentiful evidence of its promulgated safety policies, that in Mr. Phillips’s orientation at hiring he was presented these policies, and that Mr. Phillips signed an acknowl-edgement that he was aware of the policies. Sanderson also alleged that Mr. Phillips was negligent in his handling of the “gizzard 2” machine, even going so far as to suggest Mr. Phillips’s injury was the result of his intentional act of placing his hand inside the machine. The OWC was not persuaded by this evidence and these arguments, and we find that the OWC was not manifestly erroneous to conclude that SEB should have been paid.

| fiThe Workers’ Compensation Act provides basic coverage for injuries sustained in the course of employment. The Act was a compromise between labor and industry pursuant to which laborers received guaranteed no-fault recovery and industry was relieved of the possibility of large damage awards in the tort system. O'Regan v. Preferred Enterprises, Inc., 98-1602, p. 18 (La.3/17/00), 758 So.2d 124, 136. At the very heart of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Law is the idea that workers will be indemnified for their on-the-job injuries, regardless of whether the accident arose out of their own negligence. Although the OWC observed that Mr. Phillips’s injury resulted from his putting his hand in a machine that had not been properly shut off, the OWC correctly found that the issue of fault is not relevant in this case.

Sanderson has suggested that since Mr. Phillips intended to put his hand into the machine, that it was an intentional act on his part, and therefore his termination was for cause. The record, however, is devoid of any evidence that Mr. Phillips intended to hurt himself. The record shows that although Mr. Phillips did intend to put his hand in the machine to remove a piece of chicken stuck inside, he was unaware that the machine’s blades would move once he placed his hand inside. Mr. Phillips undertook a risk and that undertaking led to his injury. His actions are consistent with a classic negligence action. Such actions are protected under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Sanderson does not consider its termination of Mr. Phillips to be in bad faith since Mr. Phillips was offered the opportunity to return to light duty work and eventually back to full duty status. Sanderson, however, cannot reconcile its return-to-work policy with the fact that it terminated Mr. Phillips on the day following the accident due to his gross safety violation. | ,-Although Sanderson claimed it had offered Mr. Phillips continued employment, Mr. Phillips was never given the opportunity to perform. Since the termination would have, in effect, exempted Sanderson from providing further benefits to Mr. Phillips, we find the reason for termination to be a convenient venire for Sanderson to refuse further benefits to Mr. Phillips; and we agree with the findings of the OWC that an employer cannot refuse to pay worker’s compensation indemnity benefits based on “gross safety violations” that is the accident itself. Sanderson’s attempt to circumvent the Worker’s Compensation Act through its own safety policy cannot be permitted. Statutory protection provided to employees by the Worker’s Compensation Act supersede company safety policies.

With respect to the penalties and attorney fees, Sanderson argued that since the claim was reasonably controverted, penalties and attorney fees should not have been assessed. See La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). We find that the OWC was not manifestly erroneous in concluding that Sanderson did not reasonably controvert this claim, and we use as guidance a similar employer argument set forth in Brown v. Texas-LA Cartage, Inc., 98-1063 (La.12/1/98), 721 So.2d 885. In Brown, the claimant was not timely paid all the benefits he was due by his employer’s insurer. The insurer noted its own internal policy of issuing checks on a certain day of the week as an explanation as to why the payments weren’t made in a timely fashion. The OWC denied the claimant’s petition for benefits, penalties, and attorney fees, finding that the claim was reasonably controverted by the insurer. Id. at 891-892.

The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the OWC’s judgment, finding the claim could not be reasonably controverted simply by the existence of the insurer’s internal check issuing policy. Id. at 892. The court stated that 17for a claim to be reasonably controverted, the defendant must have some valid reason or evidence upon which to base the denial of benefits. Id. at 890. Since the insurer’s own internal policy could not reasonably controvert the claim in Brown, we likewise find that Sanderson’s own internal safety policy cannot reasonably controvert the instant claim. Without any recourse from the exception provided in La.R.S. 23:1201(F)(2), Sanderson is required by law to pay penalties and attorney fees to Mr. Phillips. See Russell, 998 So.2d at 307.

Penalties shall be assessed either at 12% of the unpaid compensation, or at $50.00 per each calendar day that benefits are unpaid, up to $2,000.00, whichever amount is greater. La. R.S. 23:1201(F)(2). The OWC assessed Sanderson $2,000.00 in penalties, which is within the guidelines of the statute. Factors to be considered in the imposition of reasonable attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases include the degree of skill and work involved in the case, the amount of the claim, the amount recovered, and the amount of time devoted to the case. Russell, 998 So.2d at 306. Sanderson forced Mr. Phillips to have this case tried before the OWC’s court, causing Mr. Phillips to hire an attorney. We find the OWC’s award of $4,500.00 in attorney fees to be reasonable and not manifestly erroneous.

Mr. Phillips timely answered Sander-son’s appeal, seeking additional attorney fees for work done on appeal. A workers’ compensation claimant is entitled to an increase in attorney fees to reflect additional time incurred in defending an unsuccessful appeal by the employer. Atwell v. First General Services, 06-0392, p. 14 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/06), 951 So.2d 348, 358, writ denied, 07-0126 (La.3/16/07), 952 So.2d 699. Accordingly, Mr. Phillips is awarded additional attorney fees in the amount of $2,000.00 for work performed on this appeal.

^CONCLUSION

We find no manifest error in the OWC’s ruling that Sanderson failed to pay SEB to Mr. Phillips pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1201(F), and we also find no manifest error in the OWC’s award of penalties and attorney fees. Furthermore, we award additional attorneys fees in connection with this appeal.

DECREE

The judgment of the Office of Workers’ Compensation in favor of the appellee, Jerry Phillips, Jr. and against the appellant, Sanderson Farms, Inc. is affirmed. Judgment is also rendered in favor of Mr. Phillips and against Sanderson Farms, Inc. for attorney fees with respect to this appeal in the amount of $2,000.00. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant.

AFFIRMED. ADDITIONAL ATTORNEY FEES AWARDED ON APPEAL.

      . Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1021 et seq.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: THERIOT, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    Linda HONOR v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, Larry Jackson, XYZ Insurance Company, Superintendent Mark Kolwe and Principal Carmen Moore.
    No. 2013 CA 0298.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2013.
    Rehearing Denied Dec. 5, 2013.

      Shytishia A.M. Flugence, Corrie R. Gal-lien, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellant Linda Honor.
    Christopher Moody, Albert D. Giraud, Hammond, Louisiana, for Defendants/Ap-pellees Tangipahoa Parish School Board, Mark Kolwe and Carmen Moore.
    Before KUHN, HIGGINBOTHAM, and THERIOT, JJ.
   THERIOT, J.

|2In this suit for damages arising from a battery committed by a co-employee, plaintiff appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendants, dismissing her claims against all defendants with prejudice. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 13, 2008, plaintiff, Linda Honor, was employed by the Tangipahoa Parish School Board as a custodian at Hammond High School. On that date, another custodian at the school, Larry Jackson, approached Ms. Honor’s custodial cart and began touching her personal custodial equipment. When Ms. Honor questioned Mr. Jackson about going through her cart, he threw her up against a wall and hit her in the face. After reporting the incident in the school office, the police officer on duty at the school escorted Ms. Honor to the hospital, where she was treated for her injuries.

On April 13, 2009, Ms. Honor filed a petition for damages allegedly sustained in the incident. Named as defendants in Ms. Honor’s petition were the Tangipahoa Parish School Board, Larry Jackson, XYZ Insurance Company, Tangipahoa Parish School Board Superintendent Mark Kolwe, and Hammond High School Principal Carmen Moore. The petition alleges that the School Board, Superintendent Kolwe, and Principal Moore are all vicariously liable for Jackson’s tortious conduct under the doctrine of respondeat superior because prior complaints had been made by employees about Jackson’s behavior and Ms. Honor had warned Principal Moore that Jackson’s rage appeared to be escalating and that she feared he was “going to explode,” but no action was taken.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore were not Mr. Jackson’s employers and thus could not be liable under respondeat superior, and that |sMs. Honor’s exclusive remedy against the School Board, as her employer, is in workers’ compensation, since the School Board did not participate in any intentional act which caused Ms. Honor’s injuries. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court, dismissing Ms. Honor’s claims against the School Board, Superintendent Kolwe, and Principal Moore. We reversed the summary judgment on appeal, holding that the defendants failed to properly support their motion for summary judgment as required by La. C.C.P. arts. 966(C)(2) and 967(B) in order to shift the burden to the non-moving party. In moving for summary judgment, the defendants offered only the self-serving argument of their memorandum to meet the initial burden of proof. Finding that to grant summary judgment under such circumstances would negate the requirements of articles 966(C)(2) and 967(B), we reversed the summary judgment. Honor v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board, 10-1822, 2011 WL 2976884, (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/10/11) (unpublished).

The defendants filed another motion for summary judgment on October 2, 2012. In support of this motion for summary judgment, defendants offered the plaintiffs petition, affidavits of Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore, and excerpts from Ms. Honor’s deposition.

Ms. Honor filed an Exception of Res Judicata, asserting that the defendants’ October 2, 2012 motion for summary judgment should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it raised the same issues that were before the court in their first motion for summary judgment, which was reversed by the appellate court. Ms. Honor also opposed the motion for summary judgment.

After a hearing, the court denied Ms. Honor’s exception of res judicata and granted summary judgment dismissing all three defendants. Ms. Honor appealed.

LDISCUSSION

Ms. Honor argues on appeal that because this court reversed the first summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of defendants and the defendants’ second motion for summary judgment asserts no new facts or issues, the second motion should be barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We disagree. It is well settled that the denial of an initial motion for summary judgment does not bar a second motion for summary judgment. Saizan v. Pointe Coupee Parish School Bd., 10-0757, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/29/10), 49 So.3d 559, 563-64, writ denied, 2010-2599 (La.1/14/11), 52 So.3d 905. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory judgment, which the trial court may change at any time up to final judgment. An interlocutory judgment cannot serve as the basis for a plea of res judicata Id. Furthermore, the jurisprudence specifically allows a trial court to consider a second motion for summary judgment after a first motion for summary judgment on the same issue has been denied. Id. This assignment of error is without merit.

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant. Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 06-368, p. 3 (La.11/29/06), 950 So.2d 544, 546. Appellate courts review summary judgments de novo, using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether summary judgment is appropriate. Costello v. Hardy, 03-1146, p. 8 (La.1/21/04), 864 So.2d 129, 137. A motion for summary judgment should only be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(B).

IsThe burden of proof remains with the movant. However, if the movant will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the matter that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mov-ant’s burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense. Thereafter, if the adverse party fails to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he will be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact. La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). Once the motion for summary judgment has been properly supported by the moving party, the failure of the non-moving party to produce evidence of a material factual dispute mandates the granting of the motion. Pugh v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 07-1856, p. 2 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/21/08), 994 So.2d 95, 97 (on rehearing), writ denied, 08-2316 (La.11/21/08), 996 So.2d 1113; see also La. C.C.P. art. 967(B).

As movants, the defendants had the initial burden of proof for purposes of seeking summary judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). However, as defendants in this matter, they would not bear the burden of proof at trial; therefore, the defendants were only required to point out to the court that there was an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to Ms. Honor’s action.

Louisiana Civil Code article 2320 provides that a master is answerable for the damage occasioned by his servants, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed. In their motion for summary judgment, Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore pointed to an absence of factual support for an essential element of Ms. Honor’s respondeat superior claims — [that,; they were Mr. Jackson’s employer. The defendants offered the affidavits of Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore, which both state that they are not Mr. Jackson’s employer. The defendants also offered Ms. Honor’s deposition testimony that the School Board is, in fact, Mr. Jackson’s employer. Although Ms. Honor argued in her memorandum in opposition to summary judgment that Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore should be considered Mr. Jackson’s employers for purposes of respondeat superior because of the supervision and control they exercise over him, she offered no evidence in support of her assertions to oppose summary judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Superintendent Kolwe and Principal Moore was properly granted.

Also the subject of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment were Ms. Honor’s claims against her employer, the School Board, alleging vicarious liability for its employee’s intentional tort. Generally, an employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer for on-the-job injury is workers’ compensation; however, an exception is made for intentional torts. La. R.S. 28:1032. An employer may be vicariously liable for the intentional acts of its employees. La. C.C. art. 2320; Craft v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 01-564, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/01), 799 So.2d 1211, 1214-15, writ denied, 02-132 (La.3/22/02), 811 So.2d 933.

The Louisiana supreme court has held that in order for an employer to be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee, the employee’s tortious conduct must be so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer’s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer’s interest. Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-2270, p. 5 (La.5/21/96), 673 So.2d 994, |7997. Thus, in an analysis of vicarious liability for an employee’s tortious acts, the court must consider more than simply whether the employee was in the course and scope of employment at the time of the incident. An employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the business premises during working hours. Vicarious liability will attach in such a case only if the employee is acting within the ambit of his assigned duties and also in furtherance of his employer’s objective. Baumeister at pp. 3-4, 673 So.2d at 996.

In determining whether vicarious liability applies, the court in Baumeister considered the following factors:

(1) whether the tortious act was primarily employment rooted;
(2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental to the performance of the employee’s duties;
(3) whether the act occurred on the employer’s premises; and
(4)whether it occurred during the hours of employment.

Baumeister at p. 4, 673 So.2d at 996-97.

The supreme court in Baumeister specifically pointed out that it was not holding that all four of these factors must be met before liability may be found, but as previously noted, an employer is not vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the employer’s premises during working hours. The particular facts of each case must be analyzed to determine whether the employee’s tor-tious conduct was within the course and scope of his employment. Baumeister at p. 4, 673 So.2d at 997.

In its motion for summary judgment, the School Board pointed out that the plaintiff has no proof to support her re-spondeat superior claim against the School Board. The evidence before the court on the motion for summary judgment revealed that the altercation between Mr. Jackson andJ^Ms. Honor began when she caught him touching her personal custodial equipment and she asked him what he was doing. Mr. Jackson began to curse at Ms. Honor and they began to struggle over the equipment. Mr. Jackson pushed Ms. Hon- or and pinned her up against a wall. Ms. Honor offered nothing in opposition to the motion for summary judgment to show that she would be able to carry her burden of proving that Mr. Jackson’s actions were within the ambit of his assigned duties and also in furtherance of his employer’s objective. Because Ms. Honor failed to come forward with any proof that she would be able to satisfy her evidentiary burden at trial, there is no genuine issue of material fact, and summary judgment was appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court overruling Ms. Honor’s exception of res judicata and granting summary judgment dismissing Ms. Honor’s claims against all parties is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff, Linda Honor.

AFFIRMED.

KUHN, J., concurs, the result is correct.


author: WELCH, J.

text:
    M.P.W. v. L.P.W.
    No. 2013 CA 0366.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
    Nov. 1, 2013.

      Erik L. Burns, Denham Springs, LA, for Appellant Plaintiff — M.P.W.
    Mary E. Heck Barrios, Denham Springs, LA, for Appellee Defendant— L.P.W.
    Before WHIPPLE, C.J., WELCH, and CRAIN, JJ.
   WELCH, J.

|2M.P.W. appeals a judgment granting a summary judgment and dismissing his petition to annul a stipulated judgment that he previously entered into with his ex-wife, L.P.W. Finding no error in the judgment of the trial court, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

L.P.W. and M.P.W. entered into a covenant marriage on May 4, 2004. On April 19, 2010, M.P.W. filed a petition seeking a separation from bed and board and a divorce. During the parties’ marriage, they had two children: S.J.W., who was born on October 2, 2008, and A.E.W., who was born on October 18, 2010. L.P.W. was pregnant with A.E.W. when the separation and divorce proceedings were commenced, and she gave birth to the child before the judgment of divorce was granted.

In M.P.W.’s petition, he sought, among other things, that he be awarded sole custody of S.J.W. and child support. L.P.W. responded by filing an answer and recon-ventional demand, seeking that the parties be awarded joint custody of S.J.W., that she be designated as the child’s domiciliary parent, subject to reasonable visitation by M.P.W., and that she be awarded child support and interim and periodic spousal support.

On May 10, 2010, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment that, among other things, awarded the parties joint custody of S.J.W., designated L.P.W. as the child’s domiciliary parent, and set forth a specific physical custodial schedule. The stipulated judgment also provided that each party had the right of first refusal to | ^provide care for S.J.W. in the absence of the other parent (other than for daycare or school). In addition, the stipulated judgment provided that pending further orders of the court, each party would be responsible for the payment of one-half of the daycare expenses for S.J.W., one-half of the health insurance premium for S.J.W., and one-half of the out-of-pocket medical, dental and other health care expenses for S.J.W. and for the pregnancy of L.P.W. Additionally, the stipulated judgment provided that the claims of each party for the payment of child support were reserved for hearing at a future date, with a reservation of any award rendered retroactive to the date of judicial demand.

On October 8, 2011, almost a year after A.E.W.’s birth, M.P.W. filed a petition seeking to disavow paternity of A.E.W. On November 29, 2011, the trial court signed a judgment of divorce, and a trial on the merits of all pending issues was scheduled for January 28, 2012. On that date, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment that: (1) dismissed M.P.W.’s petition to disavow paternity of A.E.W.; (2) terminated the custody and visitation rights of M.P.W. as to both S.J.W. and A.E.W. and awarded sole custody of both children to L.P.W.; (3) provided M.P.W. would promptly execute all documents necessary to effect the voluntary surrender of his parental rights to the minor children so as to free them for adoption; (4) enjoined M.P.W. from contacting L.P.W. or the minor children; (5) provided L.P.W. would relinquish any claims for support for herself or the minor children from M.P.W. (both past and future) and that she would waive and release her pending claim for support, contribution toward daycare, medical insurance, and medical expenses for either minor child or herself; (6) dismissed L.P.W.’s pending rule for contempt; and (7) partitioned L.PW.’s community | property and settled their claims between each other that arose from their matrimonial regime.

M.P.W. never executed a valid surrender of his parental rights, as set forth in the stipulated judgment. See In the Matter of B.L.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 6-7, 2013 WL 5872022. Instead, on June 22, 2012, he filed a petition to annul the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. In this petition, M.P.W. asserted that the provision in the stipulated judgment that “require[d him] to surrender his parental rights and sign a [v]olun-tary [a]ct of [surrender [was] an absolute nullity in that at the time of the execution of said [j]udgment[,] there was no adoption proceeding pending and therefore!,] no ability to execute a valid surrender as there was no proceeding in which to file the surrender into[,] which is a statutory requirement associated with the signing of a surrender.” In the petition, M.P.W. also asserted that the judgment was null because it was obtained by “ill practices [that] constituted a deprivation of the legal rights of [M.P.W.] to adequately prepare for the [c]ourt hearing and further!,] that the enforcement of the judgment would be inequitable and unjust.”

Specifically, M.P.W. claimed that the judgment should be annulled because: (1) immediately prior to the January 23, 2012 judgment, he shared custody of S.J.W.; (2) although there was a pending rule for contempt regarding the payment of support and other financial sums and questions related to the right of first refusal provision, there were no allegations as to inadequate parenting and no pending action seeking to modify custody; (3) although he ultimately consented to the entry of the judgment on January 23, 2012, the terms of that judgment “lead to an unconscionable result and he had no idea going into [c]ourt that he would be asked to forfeit his rights of custody as to his minor children”; and (4) the judgment contained provisions that resulted in a complete resolution of the community | .^property between the parties despite the fact that no action to partition property had been filed and there is nothing in the record that supports the reasonableness of the partition. Accordingly, M.P.W. requested that the January 23, 2012 judgment be annulled in its entirety, or alternatively, that those provisions of the judgment that “serve as a termination of his parental rights” and required him to sign a voluntary act of surrender for the minor children be rendered null and void.

On October 15, 2012, L.P.W. filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of the petition to nullify the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. By judgment signed on November 2, 2012, the trial court granted L.P.W.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed M.P.W.’s petition to annul the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment with prejudice, and it is from this judgment that M.P.W. now appeals.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment Law

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used to avoid a full scale trial when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the summary judgment procedure is favored and designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2); Power Marketing Direct, Inc. v. Foster, 2005-2023 (La.9/6/06), 938 So.2d 662, 668. A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions, together with affidavits, if any, show |6that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; La. C.C.P. art. 966(B)(2).

The mover has the burden of proof that he is entitled to summary judgment. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). If the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the subject matter of the motion, he need only demonstrate the absence of factual support for one or more essential elements of his opponent’s claim, action or defense. Id. If the moving party points out that there is an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party’s claim, action, or defense, then the non-moving party must produce factual support sufficient to satisfy his evi-dentiary burden at trial. Id. If the mover has put forth supporting proof through affidavits or otherwise, the adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. La. C.C.P. art. 967(B).

Summary judgments are reviewed on appeal de novo, with the appellate court using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s determination of whether summary judgment is appropriate: whether there is any genuine issue of material fact and whether the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Power Marketing Direct, Inc., 938 So.2d at 669. Therefore, in the present case, our de novo review will examine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether L.P.W. was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The January 23, 2012 Judgment

Initially, we note that the January 23, 2012 judgment is a stipulated judgment. A consent or a stipulated judgment is a bilateral contract by which the parties adjust their differences by mutual consent, with each party balancing his hope of gain against his fear of loss. Leonard v. Reeves, 2011-1009 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1/12/12), 82 So.3d 1250, 1261; see also La. C.C. arts. 3071 and 3072. Its binding 17force arises from the voluntary acquiescence of the parties rather than the adjudication by the court. Id.

Generally, there is no right to appeal a stipulated or consent judgment. See Mill Creek Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Manuel, 2004-1385 (La.App. 1st Cir. 6/10/05), 916 So.2d 268, 270. That is because “[a]n appeal cannot be taken by a party who confessed judgment in the proceedings in the trial court or who voluntarily and unconditionally acquiesced in a judgment rendered against him.” La. C.C.P. art.2085. Thus, in this case, as between M.P.W. and L.P.W., the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment was a final judgment and was not appealable. See Guidry v. Sothern, 98-1152 (La.App. 1st Cir. 5/14/99), 734 So.2d 928, 930-931.

Nullity of Judgments

The only remedy available to a party seeking to set aside a final judgment is an action in nullity. Guidry, 734 So.2d at 930. The nullity of a final judgment may be demanded for vices of either form or substance. La. C.C.P. art.2001. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2002 lists specific vices of form that render a judgment absolutely null, and it provides, in pertinent part that “[a] final judgment shall be annulled if it is rendered: (1) [ajgainst an incompetent person not represented as required by law[;j (2) [ajgainst 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 judgment by default has not been taken[;j and (3) [bjy a court which does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.” The grounds for absolute nullity based on vices of form listed in La. C.C.P. art.2002 are exclusive. Hebert v. Hebert, 96-2155 (La.App. 1st Cir. 9/19/97), 700 So.2d 958, 959.

With regard to vices of substance, the jurisprudence of our state recognizes that a judgment may also be absolutely null or void ab initio if it contains a | ¿‘condition that is contra bonos mores.” Id.; see also La. C.C. arts.2030 and 3082. Additionally, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2004 provides that “[a] final judgment obtained by fraud or ill practices may be annulled.” Our jurisprudence outlines two criteria for this determination: (1) when the circumstances under which the judgment was rendered show the deprivation of the legal rights of the litigant who seeks relief, and (2) when enforcement of the judgment would be unconscionable and inequitable. Belle Pass Terminal, Inc. v. Jolin, Inc., 2001-0149 (La.10/16/01), 800 So.2d 762, 766.

The legal right of which a litigant must be deprived to have a judgment annulled includes as the right to appear and assert a defense and the right to a fair and impartial trial. Id. Not every fraud or ill practice constitutes grounds to annul a judgment. Ward v. Pennington, 523 So.2d 1286, 1289 (La.1988). There must be a causal relationship between fraud or ill practice and obtaining of the judgment. Id. The party seeking annulment of a judgment must demonstrate how he was prevented or excused from asserting any defenses he may have had, i.e., that he was deprived of the knowledge of the knowledge of the existence of the defense relied on, or of the opportunity to present it, by some fraud or ill practice on the part of the other party. State, Through Department of Health and Human Res., Office of Family Sec., In Interest of Brown v. Beauchamp, 473 So.2d 323, 327 (La.App. 1st Cir.), unit denied, 477 So.2d 1125 (La.1985).

Additionally, a stipulated judgment (as opposed to other final judgments rendered against a party without their consent), being a bilateral contract, may also be annulled pursuant to La. C.C. art. 1948 for vices of consent, ie.: (1) error of fact or of the principal cause of the agreement (La. C.C. arts.1949, 1950, and 1967); (2) fraud (La. C.C. arts.1953 and 1955); or (3) duress (La.C.C. art.1959). See also La. C.C. art. 3082; Stroscher v. Stroscher, 2001-2769 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/14/2003), 845 So.2d 518, 524; Leonard, 82 So.3d at 1261; Baker v. Baker, 2012-0911, p. 7 (La.App. 1st Cir. 4/26/13), 2013 WL 1791077 (unpublished ), writ denied, 2013-1218 (La.9/13/13), 122 So.3d 545; City of Baton Rouge v. Douglas, 2007-1153 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/8/08), 984 So.2d 746, 749, writ denied, 2008-0939 (La.6/20/08), 983 So.2d 1284; and Hoover v. Boucvalt, 99-0867 (La.App. 4th Cir. 11/24/99), 747 So.2d 1227, 1230, writ denied, 99-3610 (La.2/18/00), 754 So.2d 969.

Consent is vitiated when it has been obtained by duress of such a nature as to cause a reasonable fear of unjust and considerable injury to a party’s person, property, or reputation. La. C.C. art.1959. Consent is vitiated even when duress has been exerted by a third person. La. C.C. art.1961. Generally, as in the present case, “duress” means “a threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment” or more specifically, “a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeking assent by another person to a transaction without real volition.” Leonard, 82 So.3d at 1261, citing Black’s Law Dictionary 542 (8th ed.2004). (Emphasis added). “Duress of imprisonment” is defined as “[t]he wrongful confining of a person to force the person to do something.” Id. (Emphasis added.); see also La. C.C. art.1959, comment (b).

The Evidence on the Motion for Summary Judgment

In L.P.W.’s motion for summary judgment, she claimed that the allegations of M.P.W.’s petition, when taken as a whole, failed to warrant the nullification of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, which was acknowledged under oath, on the record, and in open court by the parties. Essentially, in support of her motion, L.P.W. relied on the transcript of the January 23, 2012 stipulation. The transcript provides, in pertinent part as follows:

[BY COUNSEL FOR L.P.W.]:
The parties have agreed that [M.P.W.] will promptly execute a surrender of parental rights as to both [S.J.W.], whose date of birth is October the 2nd, 2008, and [A.E.W.], whose date of birth is October the 18, 2010.
[inWe are immediately terminating any custodial or visitation rights that he may have as to either child....
[M.P.W.] "will be absolved of any responsibility for payment of any of the contributory expenses that were previously ordered by the [c]ourt, any claim for child support, past or future, for either of the children.... In other words, those that he was ordered to pay and didn’t pay.... Those are going to be relinquished, as well as any daycare— future daycare obligations.
[L.P.W.] s going to waive any claims for — she’s going to dismiss her pending rule for contempt and waive any future claims for contempt arising from his failure to abide by prior orders of the [c]ourt....

Both L.P.W. and M.P.W. then swore under oath that they each heard the terms and conditions of the stipulation or agreement, that they each understood those terms and conditions, and that they each agreed to abide by those terms and conditions. The trial court then accepted the stipulation, and then ordered that a written judgment in accordance with that stipulation be prepared. Further, the stipulated judgment signed by the trial court conforms to the stipulation dictated into the record and there is no dispute over the terms of the stipulation dictated on the record and the judgment signed in conformity with that stipulation.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, essentially M.P.W. contended that the entire judgment was an absolute nullity because: (1) the provision wherein L.P.W. relinquished her right to child support from M.P.W. was contra bonos mores (against public policy) and (2) the provision that required him to sign a voluntary act of surrender before an adoption proceeding was pending, violated Louisiana law, and therefore, was also against public policy. He also claimed that the judgment was null based on La. C.C.P. art.2004, because it was obtained by fraud or ill practices. Essentially, he claims that is he is being deprived of his legal rights to his children, that the enforcement of the judgment |1Twould be unconscionable, and the judgment encompassed issues that were not pending before the court.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, M.P.W. relied on his own affidavit, which provided:

On January 23, 2012[,] I appeared in court on a scheduled rule. My attorney at the time had communicated with me very little about what [was] going on prior to that time. On that day[,] my attorney conferred with me a number of times and advised me of new contempt charges for failing to comply with prior court orders. He told me that opposing counsel would likely see me face jail time for contempt unless I was willing to surrender the rights to both of my children, free them for adoption, agree to an injunction, agree to a resolution of the community property with me keeping only what was in my possession and giving to [L.P.W.] everything else, including all equity in the house. I was told that the disparity in the property would cover my past child support and they would not pursue contempt charges, relieving me of the likelihood of going to jail, but at the same time forever severing myself from the lives of [L.P.W.] and my two children!, S.J.W. and A.E.WJ. I was unable to comprehend all that was taking place on this day as I had no idea that custody, much less the termination of the rights to my children would be an issue. On that day, I was under extreme duress brought about by the likelihood of being incarcerated; a threat to my personal freedom, and this caused a brief lapse in self-control, and so I agreed to anything and everything. I ultimately signed the judgment that was drawn up following the January 23, 2012 court appearance because I was told that I had no choice but to do so since that was the judgment, or order of the court, entered in open court. Once I was able to absorb all that transpired, and after seeing a counselor to cope with the possible loss of my children, I felt that I would rather go to jail then give up the rights to my children and I feel that way today.

Absolute Nullity

In this case, there is nothing in the record to suggest that there were any vices of form that would render the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment absolutely null as set forth in La. C.C.P. art.2002. With regard to whether the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment is an absolute nullity for vices of substance, since the material facts with regard to these issues are not in dispute, we look solely to the legal question presented by the motion for summary judgment, i.e., whether the provisions wherein L.P.W. agreed to relinquish her claim for child support against M.P.W. and wherein M.P.W. agreed to sign a voluntary act of |12surrender and free the children for adoption proceedings were against public policy, and therefore, absolutely null as a matter of law. See Power Marketing Direct, Inc., 938 So.2d at 669.

Parents have a legal duty to provide support to their children. Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So.2d 377, 380 (La.1980). This duty cannot be ' permanently renounced or suspended. Id. Thus, the courts of our state have long recognized that a judgment wherein a parent is permanently relieved of his obligation to support his minor children is an absolute nullity because it contravenes the public policy of this state. Hebert, 700 So.2d at 960; see also Walder v. Walder, 159 La. 231, 105 So. 300 (1925); Dubroc, 388 So.2d at 380; Pierce v. Pierce, 397 So.2d 62, 64 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1981); Richardson v. Richardson, 427 So.2d 518, 520 (La.App. 3rd Cir.), writ denied, 433 So.2d 182 (La.1983); Macaluso v. Macaluso, 509 So.2d 201, 202-203 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). The public policy behind a parent’s duty of support is to ensure, both for the sake of the child and the sake of the general public that might otherwise have to provide his support, that each child receives support sufficient for his maintenance and upbringing. Macaluso; 509 So.2d at 202. Nevertheless, the parents of a child may mutually agree to modify a support judgment in certain respects; however, in order for such an agreement to be enforceable, it must be in the child’s best interest and must not interrupt his maintenance and upbringing. Id.

In this case, child support was never set. According to the May 10, 2010 stipulated judgment, both L.P.W. and M.P.W. agreed that they would each be responsible for the payment of one-half of the daycare expenses for S.J.W., one-half of the health insurance premium for S.J.W., and one-half of the out-of-pocket medical, dental and other health care expenses for S.J.W., and that their claims for |13child support were reserved for hearing at a future date. According to the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, L.P.W. relinquished any claims she had for the support of the minor children — both past and future— from M.P.W. and she waived and released her pending claim for M.P.W.’s failure to contribute toward the daycare, medical insurance, and medical expenses for either child or herself.

Although this agreement may appear to permanently relieve M.P.W. of his obligation to support his children, we note that this agreement was in conjunction with another agreement that M.P.W.’s custodial and visitation rights would be terminated and that M.P.W. would promptly execute a voluntary act of surrender of his parental rights to the minor children so as to free them for adoption. The execution of a voluntary act of surrender of parental rights and the subsequent adoption of a child effectually terminates the parental rights and obligations of the surrendering parent, including the surrendering parent’s obligation to support the child, and the adopting parent becomes the parent of the child for all purposes. See La. C.C. arts. 199 and 227; and La. Ch.C. arts. 1101, 1123, and 1193. Therefore, we do not find that the agreement that L.P.W. would relinquish her claim for child support against M.P.W., together with the agreement that M.P.W. would execute a voluntary surrender of his parental rights so that the children could be adopted, violates the public policy of this state, because the adopting parent would be assuming the legal obligation to financially support the children. Accordingly, | uwe find no merit to M.P.W.’s claim that this provision of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment is an absolute nullity.

We likewise find no merit to M.P.W.’s contention that the provision in the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment wherein he agreed to sign a voluntary act of surrender before an adoption proceeding was pending was against public policy. M.P.W. essentially argues that the requirements set forth in La. Ch.C. art. 1122(A)(4) and (5) for a voluntary act of surrender could not be met at the time of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment because there was no adoption proceeding pending, there was no court in which to file the surrender, and no ability to provide the name and address of the individual or agency to whom the surrender was being made. Therefore, he claims that, at the time of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, it was impossible to have a valid act of surrender, and thus, any agreement that he execute such a surrender at the time the stipulated judgment was entered into, was a violation of Louisiana law and against public policy.

Notably, deficiencies in or the inadequacy of a voluntary act of surrender executed under La. Ch.C. art. 1122 only renders the surrender invalid. See In Re C.A.P., 573 So.2d 214, 216 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writs denied, 566 So.2d 964 (La.1990). Such deficiencies do not render the surrender unlawful, Therefore, we 11scannot say that this provision of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment was against public policy. See La. C.C. art. 2030.

Furthermore, the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment and the transcript of the stipulation indicate an agreement that M.P.W. would “promptly” execute all documents necessary to effect the voluntary surrender of his parental rights to the minor children so that the children could be adopted; the judgment did not require him to execute a surrender at the same time the stipulated judgment was entered into or otherwise before an adoption proceeding was commenced. Interestingly, M.P.W. never executed a valid voluntary act of surrender, and L.P.W. never sought to enforce this provision of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, as a final decree of adoption of the minor children was ultimately rendered without M.P.W.’s consent pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1245(C)(2). See In the Matter of B.L.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 2013 WL 5872022.

Accordingly, we find that the provisions of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, wherein L.P.W. relinquished her claim for child support against M.P.W. with the agreement that M.P.W. would execute a voluntary act of surrender and free the children for adoption, were not against public policy and were not absolutely null. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed those claims.

Relative Nullity and Vices of Consent

With regard to whether the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment should be nullified as having been obtained by fraud or ill practices, or because of a vice of consent, M.P.W. would bear the burden of proof at trial. Therefore, L.P.W.’s burden on the motion for summary judgment was to point out that there was an absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to M.P.W.’s claim; 1 ^thereafter, M.P.W. was required to produce factual support sufficient to establish that he would be able to satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof at trial. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2). His failure to do so would mandate granting the motion. See La. C.C.P. art. 966(C)(2)

As previously noted, in support of L.P.W.’s motion for summary judgment, she relied on the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment and the transcript of that stipulation. The transcript reflects that M.P.W. was represented by counsel when he entered into the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment and that he knowingly and voluntarily agreed under oath to each of the terms set forth in the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. The transcript does not reflect that M.P.W. was deprived of the opportunity to appear or present a defense at the hearing or of any other legal right. Nor does the transcript reflect that there was any fraud or ill practices on the part of any of the parties, the attorneys, or the trial court, which led to the January 23, 2012 judgment. Lastly, the transcript does not reflect that M.P.W. agreed to the terms of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment under threat, duress, or coercion, that he had a mistaken belief as to the terms of the agreement, or that his consent to the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment was vitiated in any way.

As previously noted, the only evidence offered by M.P.W. in opposition to the motion for summary judgment was his own affidavit. Essentially, M.P.W. provides that counsel for L.P.W. wanted him to “face jail time for contempt” unless he was willing to agree to surrender his rights to both of his children and free them for adoption, as well as agree to the other terms of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, and that he was under “extreme duress brought about by the likelihood of being incarcerated.”

However, inherent in the definitions of “duress” and “duress of imprisonment” previously set forth hereinabove, is the element of a lack of legal | ^justification, or wrong, behind the threat or action. If M.P.W. had any real apprehension of incarceration for contempt of court, such apprehension could only have been based upon: (1) the court’s inherent authority to enforce its previous lawful judgments; and/or (2) L.P.W.’s legal right to seek such redress for any proven willful violation of such judgments on M.P.W.’s part. See Leonard, 82 So.3d at 1261. This does not, by definition, constitute duress for purposes of vitiating his consent to the entry of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. Id. A threat of doing a lawful act or a threat of exercising a right does not constitute duress. La. C.C. art. 1962; Leonard, 82 So.3d at 1261-1262.

Furthermore, M.P.W.’s affidavit does not establish that there are any genuine issues of material fact as to any fraud, ill practices, deprivation of a legal right, error, or duress on the part of any of the parties, the attorneys, or the trial court. Rather, this affidavit only establishes that M.P.W. changed his mind after he agreed, in open court and under oath, to the terms of the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. Unfortunately for M.P.W., a change of heart is not a valid ground to nullify a stipulated judgment or otherwise rescind a compromise agreement. See City of Baton Rouge, 984 So.2d at 750. And, while M.P.W. obviously feels he made a bad decision to enter into the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, it is not the province of the courts to relieve a party of a supposed bad bargain. See City of Baton Rouge, 984 So.2d at 750; River Birch, Inc. v. Robin & Associates, Inc., 2004-1561 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/15/05), 906 So.2d 729, 737, writ denied, 2005-2201 (La.2/10/06), 924 So.2d 176. Accordingly, we conclude that M.P.W. failed to establish that there were any genuine issues of material fact with regard to his claim to nullify the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment. Thus, the trial court properly granted L.P.W.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed those claims.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the November 2, 2012 judgment of the trial court granting L.P.W.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing M.P.W.’s petition to nullify the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff/appellant, M.P.W.

AFFIRMED.

      . Due to the confidential nature of an appeal closely related to this appeal also rendered this date, In the Matter of B.L.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 2013 WL 5872022, the minor children, their biological parents, and their stepparent are referred to by their initials to preserve their anonymity.

      . M.P.W. alleged in his petition that S.J.W.'s date of birth was October 3, 2008; however, that appears to be a mistake as all other pleadings in this matter and the pleadings in In the Matter of BX.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 2013 WL 5872022, state that his date of birth was October 2, 2008.

      . The stipulated judgment was signed by the trial court on May 14, 2010.

      . Apparently, M.P.W. voluntarily agreed to dismiss the petition to disavow paternity after he received the results of a paternity test.

      . After M.P.W. filed the petition to annul the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, B.L.M., L.P.W.’s current husband and stepfather to the two minor children, filed a petition for intrafamily adoption. The juvenile court subsequently granted the adoption pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1245 and M.P.W. appealed. In a decision also rendered this date,
        In the Matter of B.L.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 2013 WL 5872022, this court affirmed the final decree of adoption.

      . In response to the petition to annul the January 23, 2012 stipulated judgment, L.P.W. initially filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of improper cumulation of actions and a peremption exception raising the objections of no cause and no right of action. However, according to the trial court minutes, L.P.W. ultimately withdrew the objections.

        .See Diamond B Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Plaquemine, 95-1979 (La.App. 1st Cir.4/30/96), 673 So.2d 636, 640 (when a contract is to be interpreted by the court as a matter of law, a motion for summary judgment is a proper procedural vehicle to present the question to the court).

      . Since A.E.W. had not yet been bom, this May 10, 2010 stipulated judgment was silent with respect to that child.

      . Since a stipulated judgment is a bilateral contract, its provisions must be interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract in its entirety. See La. C.C. art.2050.

      . Although M.P.W. never signed a valid voluntary act of surrender, the minor children were ultimately adopted by their step-father without M.P.W.'s consent pursuant to La. Ch.C. art. 1245(C)(2), and this court affirmed the final decree of adoption. See In the Matter of B.L.M. Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of S.J.W. and A.E.W., 2013-0448 (La.App. 1st Cir. 11/1/13), 136 So.3d 5, 2013 WL 5872022.

      . Louisiana Children’s Code article 1122(A) provides, in pertinent part:
      Every [a]ct of [s]urrender shall contain the following information:

      (4) The name and address of the person, agency, or representative to whom the surrender is made.
      (5) The court in which the surrender is to be filed as required by [La. Ch.C. art.] 1131.

      . We note that In Re C.A.P., 573 So.2d at 216 addressed inadequacies of a voluntary act of surrender executed pursuant to former La. R.S. 9:422.6(A), which provisions are now set forth in La. Ch.C. art. 1122(A). See La. Ch.C. art. 1122, comment b.

      . Seefore.g., La. Ch.C. art. 1131(D) (providing that the court can refuse to accept an act of surrender that fails to comply with the legal requirements until the defects in the surrender are remedied).

      . Additionally, a party cannot claim duress based on the choice between reaching a compromise agreement and going to trial. Hoover, 747 So.2d at 1231. The expense and uncertainty of trial is the very stuff of which settlements are made. Expense and uncertainty may cause stress and pressure, but they do not constitute legal duress. Without such stress, pressure, expense, and uncertainty, there would be no reason to settle. Id.

      . Although M.P.W. argues in his brief that he is being deprived of the legal right to be involved in the lives of his children (even though he voluntarily agreed to relinquish his rights), the legal right of which a litigant must be deprived to have a judgment annulled has includes the right to appear and assert a defense and the right to a fair and impartial trial. See Belle Pass Terminal, Inc., 800 So.2d at 766. M.P.W.’s affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment fails to establish a factual issue as to whether he was deprived of the opportunity to appear and assert a defense at the January 23, 2012 hearing.