the delay allowed by the court[.] (Emphasis added). |flThe trial court effectively sustained the exception of insufficiency of process in denying the motion to confirm the default. We therefore find the trial court erred in its May 2, 2012 Judgment denying confirmation based on insufficient service by not permitting Ms. Jackson to request reser-vice on the Board within a specified delay. Assignment of error number three has merit. We therefore reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the action. The Board filed its answer on May 18, 2012, after the May 2, 2012 judgment of dismissal and before the June 8, 2012 hearing/judgment denying a new trial. The filed answer prevents any judgment of default or award on the merits. See Ackel v. Ackel, 05-97 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/31/05), 905 So.2d 1137 (<HOLDING>). With the dismissal vacated, and the Board’s
holding that a notice of appeal that specifies the final judgment brings up for review all of the previous rulings and orders that led up to that final judgment holding that filing of an answer up to the time of signing of judgment renders the judgment an absolute nullity holding that the trial court in entering judgment affirming an earlier judgment for an award of attorney fees after having discovered that it mistakenly entered the earlier judgment before the expiration of time for the filing of objections had the inherent power under orcp 71 cs modification authority to change the effective date of the judgment without vacating or setting aside the judgment holding that a preanswer motion for summary judgment does not suspend the time for filing an answer holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it  actually enters or renders a judgment  or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment  to be considered final for purposes of an appeal