ARCENEAUX v. ARCENEAUX (2025)

Darnelle Bordelon Arceneaux, now Hargroder (Mrs. Hargroder), appeals the trial court's October 3, 2023 judgment partitioning the community property of her marriage to Bryan David Arceneaux (Mr. Arceneaux). She also appeals the trial court's February 26, 2024 judgment overruling her exception of prescription.²

In addition, she filed an exception of no right of action in this Court in connection with a petition for intervention filed into the divorce proceedings. For the following reasons, we overrule the exception of no right of action and affirm the February 26, 2024 judgment. With regard to the October 3, 2023 judgment, we affirm in part, reverse in part, render, and remand with instructions.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mr. Arceneaux and Mrs. Hargroder were married on June 13, 1987. Mrs. Hargroder filed a petition for divorce on May 21, 2018,³ and the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 20,2018. During their marriage, the parties formed Louisiana SW Transportation, Inc. (LSWT), Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC (LTS), and Tank Specialties, LLC (Tank Specialties, collectively the Tank Specialties Group or TSG).⁴ The parties also formed Arceneaux Whitetail, LLC (Arceneaux Whitetail), Colby Jean Fishing, LLC (Colby Jean Fishing), and Bryan Arceneaux Capital Holdings, LLC (Bryan Arceneaux Capital Holdings), during the marriage.

In December 2016, the parties transferred 99% of their ownership interest in TSG and Arceneaux Whitetail to the Bryan and Darnelle Arceneaux Irrevocable Trust in exchange for promissory notes issued by the Trust payable to the parties.⁵ The parties maintained a 1% ownership in these companies.

In connection with the divorce, Mrs. Hargroder sought an injunction prohibiting Mr. Arceneaux from alienating community property. On April 24, 2019, following a hearing, the trial court granted Mrs. Hargroder's request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Mr. Arceneaux from disposing of or encumbering the assets of TSG, Arceneaux Whitetail, Colby Jean Fishing, and Bryan Arceneaux Capital Holdings, “other than that which is necessary for the day-to-day management of the operations in the normal scope of business” of the companies.

In October of 2019, Mr. Arceneaux filed a motion to modify the April 24,2019 judgment to permit the refinancing of $25,000,000.00 in existing LSWT and LTS company debt in what the parties referred to as the USDA loan. The parties entered into a consent judgment on October 11, 2019, which provided that Mrs. Hargroder would not incur any personal liability for the USDA loan and would be released from all personal liability for the debts being refinanced by the USDA loan. Thereafter, on November 7, 2019, LSWT and LTS entered into the USDA loan agreement, which was personally guaranteed by Mr. Arceneaux.

On March 8, 2021, LSWT and LTS (Intervenors) filed a petition for intervention into the divorce proceedings, seeking reimbursement from the community that formerly existed between Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux. According to the petition, during the course of their marriage, Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux incurred a number of expenses, purchased a number of luxury and recreational items, and incurred numerous personal expenses for themselves and their children using LSWT and LTS funds, although these were not business expenses. The Intervenors alleged these expenses totaled $4,283,176.59. LSWT and LTS further sought reimbursement from Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux for expenses paid on their behalf by the Intervenors after the termination of the community, totaling $529,684.66.

A community property partition trial was held on April 11 and 18, 2022. Prior to the beginning of the trial, the parties entered into a stipulation as to the value of certain community assets. The stipulation also included the following:

VI. PARTIES STIPULATE THAT BRYAN ARCENEAUX PERSONALLY GUARANTEED THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS LOANS:

a. United Community Bank USDA loan #3174 Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC and Louisiana S.W. Transportation, Inc. (barn & pasture parcels as additional collateral) Original loan amount: $24,999,351.00 as of 1/27/21 Scheduled monthly payment: $218,096.52 Balance as of date: 4/11/22 $23,890,672.86

b. South Lafourche Bank loan #6625 Louisiana S.W. [Transportation], Inc. (house, barn & pasture parcels as additional collateral) Original loan amount: $1,808,303.34 Scheduled monthly payment: $14,676.76 Balance as of date: 4/11/22 $1,785,947.76

c. State Bank [l]oan #6325 Arceneaux White Tail, LLC Original loan amount: $2,439,888.42 Scheduled monthly payment: $26,302.12 Balance as of date: 4/11/22 $2,243,071.00

d. Crenshaw Family Holdings, LP, Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC (barn & pasture parcels as additional collateral) Original loan amount: $4,000,000.00 Balance as of date: 4/11/22 $2,266,667.00

(Emphasis in original.)

The primary issues remaining for the trial were the allocation and value of the companies and the Intervenors’ claims. Both parties testified at trial and submitted the testimony of experts as to the value of the companies. Mrs. Hargroder's expert witness, Edward J. Comeaux, III, CPA/ABV,⁶ testified that the value of TSG was $14,100,000.00. Mr. Arceneaux's expert, Michael D. Bergeron, CPA/CVA/CGMA,⁷ concluded that the value of a 100% controlling interest in TSG was negative $2,584,826.00 (-$2,584,826.00).

The parties submitted post-trial memoranda, and the trial court took the matter under advisement. On October 3, 2023, the trial court issued reasons for judgment and a community property partition judgment. In addition to the parties’ stipulations as to the value of certain property, the judgment contained the following pertinent rulings:

(1) The USDA loan was a community debt, as were the debts of LSWT to South Lafourche Bank, LTS to Crenshaw Family Holdings, and Arceneaux Whitetail to State Bank;

(2) The community's one percent ownership interest in TSG was valued at $277,699.10;

(3) The Intervenor[s’] claims in the amount of $4,281,176.59 for community expenditures made by the Intervenors through May 17, 2018 and in the amount of $560,088.16 for the Intervenor's payment of expenses for the community's residence at 370 Green Acres Street, the Grand Isle lot, and the Yellowfin boat from May 13, 2018, through March 31, 2022, were granted, for a total reimbursement claim to the Intervenors in the amount of $4,841,264.75; and

(4) The value of the assets of the former community was negative $23,763,005.04, making the community insolvent.

Mrs. Hargroder filed a motion for new trial, contending the trial court erred in classifying company debt as community debt and thereby concluding the community was insolvent. She also filed an exception of prescription as to the Intervenors’ claims, seeking to exclude any sum claimed for debts existing prior to 2016, three years prior to the filing of the intervention.

Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the exception of prescription and denied the motion for new trial. Mrs. Hargroder appeals the community property partition judgment and the judgment overruling the exception of prescription. In addition, she filed an exception of no right of action in this Court, contending the Intervenors had no legal right to assert certain claims against her and Mr. Arceneaux.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Mrs. Hargroder assigns as error the following:

1. The trial court committed manifest error, and was clearly wrong, by reducing the value of the community by the amount of company debt when the valuation provided by the defendant's expert had already incorporated and netted that debt into the determination of value.

2. The trial court committed manifest error in failing to value the community of acquets and gains at $10,961,072.00; the valuation submitted by the expert included the “non-operating assets” in his determination of value.

3. The trial court committed manifest error by classifying company debt of LSWT, LTS, Tank Specialties, and Arceneaux Whitetail, which companies were owned 99% by the Trust, as community debt when that debt was not incurred for the benefit of the community, in contravention of La. C.C. art. 2360.

4. The trial court committed manifest error by classifying company debt of LSWT, LTS, Tank Specialties, and Arceneaux Whitetail, as community debt.

5. The trial court committed manifest error by classifying what was admittedly company debt as community debt impliedly based solely on the existence of personal guarantees when none of those guarantees appeared in the record; no terms were stated, no copies produced, and no evidence was provided that those guarantees were executed during the marriage.

6. The trial court committed manifest error as to the claims of Intervenors for myriad reasons:

a. The “due from” sums claimed by Intervenors were shown on their books to be owed by separate juridical entities: Colby Jean Fishing, and Arceneaux Whitetail, who are not parties to this litigation.

b. There exist on the books of LSWT and LTS offsetting sums clearly showed to be owed to the Arceneauxs which the trial court failed to credit to the community.

c. The Intervenors failed to meet their burden of proof to show for what purpose the claimed sums were advanced. The books prior to May 2018 lack any specificity whatsoever, and the records show the advanced sums were for “payroll” of other companies. Only generalizations were offered as to the nature of the majority of expenditures.

7. The trial court committed manifest error by either denying her exception of prescription or alternatively by awarding damages to the Intervenors.

8. The trial court committed manifest error by classifying the USDA loan as a community obligation.

9. If the trial court did not commit manifest error by classifying the USDA loan as a community obligation, that classification ignores two effects: it immediately fully accelerated and imposed that acceleration on Mrs. Hargroder's 50% interest in the community, while simultaneously ignoring the absence of default by the maker and the credits flowing to the benefit of Mr. Arceneaux by the payments made by the maker.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

A trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations made in the course of valuing and allocating assets and liabilities in the partition of community property may not be set aside absent manifest error. Berthelot v. Berthelot, 2017-1055 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/18/18), 254 So. 3d 800, 806. However, where one or more legal errors by the trial court interdict the fact-finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable. Id. at 807. The standard of review for mistakes of law by the trial court requires the appellate court to engage in a de novo review of the entire record and render a judgment on the merits. Crouere v. Bruni, 2022-1099 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/25/23), 2023 WL 3’63 8086, *2 (unpublished).

Classification of Debt and Valuation of Community (Assignments of Error Numbers 1-5, 8 and 9)

In these interrelated assignments of error, Mrs. Hargroder contends the trial court erred by classifying company debt as community debt, thereby reducing the value of the community. She further contends that the trial court erred by failing to use Mr. Bergeron's valuation of TSG, which incorporated the company debt.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found Mr. Bergeron's testimony and his reasons for valuing TSG to be credible. Mrs. Hargroder does not object to the trial court's use of Mr. Bergeron's valuation, but rather argues the trial court substituted its own opinion and calculation of the value of TSG rather than using Mr. Bergeron's.

At the community property partition trial, Mr. Bergeron testified in accordance with the valuation he prepared, which was introduced into evidence. Mr. Bergeron concluded that the fair market value of a 100% controlling interest in TSG as of December 31, 2021, was as follows:

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court indicated that it found the community's interest in the 1% ownership of the market value of the invested capital plus non-operating assets of TSG to be valued at $277,699.10. This amount is 1% of Mr. Bergeron's valuation of the indicated market value of the invested capital plus the non-operating assets, which Mr. Bergeron testified was the amount due from shareholders as reflected on the books of TSG ($19,789,771.00 + 7,980,139.00 = $27,769,910.00). The trial court's valuation does not include any of the outstanding debt that was included in Mr. Bergeron's valuation.

The October 3, 2023 judgment lists the 1% ownership in TSG as a community asset valued at $277,699.10. The judgment also lists the following as community liabilities:

(1) The USDA loan in the amount of -$23,890,672.86

(2) The South Lafourche Bank loan in the amount of -$1,785,947.76

(3) The Crenshaw Family Holdings, LP note in the amount of-$2,266,667.00

Mrs. Hargroder objects to the classification of these debts as community, contending these are company debts.⁸

A corporation is a separate entity from its shareholders and a Louisiana limited liability company is a separate legal entity from its members. See La. C.C. art. 24; Danos Tree Service, LLC v. Proride Trailers, LLC, 2017-1546 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/10/18), 255 So. 3d 1078, 1084. Corporations and limited liability companies are recognized juridical persons. Id. Consequently, a corporation's shareholders are not liable for its debts. Taviani v. Akrom, Inc., 22-475 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/26/23), 363 So. 3d 1284, 1288, writ denied, 2023-00863 (La. 10/10/23), 371 So. 3d 456. Similarly, members of a limited liability company are generally not liable for a debt, obligation, or liability of the limited liability company. See La. R.S. 12:1320(B); Hill International, Inc. v. JTS Realty Corporation, 2021-0157 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/20/22), 370 So. 3d 16, 29.

However, when a community property regime exists between two spouses, one spouse's guaranty of a company debt is a community obligation. See Krielow v. Krielow, 635 So. 2d 180, 186 (La. 1994). The contract of guaranty is equivalent to a contract of suretyship, which must be express and in writing. La. C.C. art. 3038; Oryv. Russell, 2018-1491 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/12/19), 289 So. 3d 1151, 1156.

(1) USDA Loan

As noted above, the October 3, 2023 judgment classified the USDA loan as a community liability and reduced the value of the community by $23,890,672.86. With regard to this loan, Mrs. Hargroder argues that the trial court erred in classifying this debt as a community obligation because it was a refinance of prior company debt; was refinanced after the termination of the community; and Mr. Arceneaux executed a personal guaranty of the loan after the community was terminated. Mr. Arceneaux argues that this obligation was incurred during the community for the benefit of the community, and the refinance and personal guaranty of the loan after the termination of the community did not change its classification as community debt. In support of this argument, he cites Clemons v. Clemons, 42,129 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/9/07), 960 So. 2d 1068, writ denied, 2007-1652 (La. 10/26/07), 966 So. 2d 583. Clemons involved a post-termination refinancing of a community obligation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal found that a spouse's conversion of a line of credit obtained by both parties prior to the termination of the community into a permanent loan and the subsequent refinancing of that loan after the termination of the community did not change the nature or origin of the duty to repay, and the debt remained a community obligation. Id. at 1073.

In this case, the record reflects that on April 4, 2019, after the termination of the community, LSWT and LTS sought a $25,000,000.00 USDA loan from United Community Bank “for the purpose of restructuring existing debt of the company.” Mr. Arceneaux agreed to personally guarantee this loan, and acknowledged by stipulation that he did so.⁹ On October 11, 2019, the parties entered into a consent judgment whereby Mrs. Hargroder consented to the refinance of the company debt on the condition that she did not incur any personal liability for the USDA loan. The record further reflects that LSWT and LTS entered into a credit agreement with United Community Bank on November 7, 2019. The stipulation entered into by the parties prior to the community partition trial classified the USDA loan as a “business” loan. In sum, there is no evidence in the record that the company debt that was refinanced by the USDA loan was anything other than company debt. In Clemons, there was no dispute that the loan that was refinanced after the termination of the community had been a community obligation. Thus, we find Clemons distinguishable.

Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in characterizing the USDA loan as a community liability.

(2) Other LSWT and LTS debts

In addition to the USDA loan, the October 3, 2023 judgment classified the debt of LSWT to South Lafourche Bank and the debt of LTS to Crenshaw Family Holdings as community liabilities.

The parties stipulated that these business loans were personally guaranteed by Mr. Arceneaux. However, the stipulation did not establish that the personal guarantee was made during the community. If Mr. Arceneaux had guaranteed these loans prior to the termination of the community, the guarantees would have created community obligations. See Krielow, 635 So. 2d at 186. As noted above, the contract of guaranty must be express and in writing. See Ory, 289 So. 3d at 1156. There is no evidence in the record of a written contract of guaranty indicating the date or dates of any personal guarantee. Therefore, there is no evidence that any personal guarantee by Mr. Arceneaux of the business loans created an obligation for which the community is liable. See Ory, 289 So. 3d at 1157; Crouere, 2023 WL 3 63 8086 at *3. Thus, we find the trial court erred in characterizing the South Lafourche Bank loan and the Crenshaw Family Holdings note as community liabilities.

Because we find the trial court erred in classifying the USDA loan, the debt of LSWT to South Lafourche Bank, and the debt of LTS to Crenshaw Family Holdings as community liabilities, we reverse that portion of the October 3, 2023 judgment that includes (1) the USDA loan as a community liability valued at -$23,890,672.86; (2) the South Lafourche Bank loan as a community liability valued at -$1,785,947.76; and (3) the Crenshaw Family Holdings note as a community liability valued at -$2,266,667.00.

However, that does not end our consideration of the impact of these debts on the community. We recognize that these are company debts for which an accounting must be made. Mrs. Hargroder asks this Court to use the valuation of TSG reached by Mr. Bergeron, which included the company debt. We find merit in Mrs. Hargroder's request. Mr. Bergeron, a certified public accountant and certified valuation analyst, testified as an expert in the fields of valuation of closely held companies and accounting. He testified as to recognized accounting principles, and his testimony was found credible by the trial court. Further, neither expert supported the accounting method employed by the trial court. As noted above, in valuing 100% of TSG, Mr. Bergeron reduced the indicated market value of invested capital by $30,354,736.00. He then added the value of the non-operating assets to reach a fair market value of -$2,5 84,826.00. One percent of the value assigned to TSG is - $25,848.26.

Accordingly, we also reverse that portion of the October 3, 2023 judgment that valued the 1% ownership in TSG as a community asset at $277,699.10, and we amend the judgment to value the 1% ownership of TSG as a community liability valued at -$25,848.26, thereby accounting for the company debts in the valuation of the company.

(3) Arceneaux Whitetail Debt

Finally, we address the Arceneaux Whitetail debt to State Bank in the amount of-$2,243,071.00, which was also listed as a community liability in the October 3, 2023 judgment. As with the LSWT and LTS loans listed above, the parties stipulated that this was a business loan guaranteed by Mr. Arceneaux. Again, there is no evidence in the record of a written contract of guaranty indicating the date of the personal guarantee. Thus, there is no evidence that the personal guarantee created an obligation for which the community is liable. See Ory, 289 So. 3d at 1157; Crouere, 2023 WL 3638086 at *3. Thus, we find the trial court erred in characterizing the State Bank loan as a community liability. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the judgment that includes the State Bank loan as a community liability valued at -$2,243,071.00.¹⁰

Claims of Intervenors (Exception of No Right of Action; Assignments of Error Numbers 6 and 7)

The October 3, 2023 judgment granted the claims of the Intervenors as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the claims of Intervenors, Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC and Louisiana SW Transportation, Inc., as to the loans to shareholders are hereby granted, recognizing that the community property between Darnelle and Bryan owes reimbursement to the Intervenors in the amount of $4,281,176.59 for community expenditures made by the Intervenors through May 17, 2018 and in the amount of $560,088.16 for the Intervenor's payment of expenses for the community's residence at 370 Green Acres Street, the Grand Isle lot, and the Yellowfin boat from May 13, 2018, through March 31, 2022, for a total reimbursement claim of $4,841,264.75 to Intervenors.

The debt to Intervenors was included as a community liability in the amount of-$4,841,264.75.

(1) Exception of No Right of Action

Mrs. Hargroder filed an exception of no right of action in this Court, alleging that part of the $4,281,176.59 awarded to the Intervenors was due to non-parties to the Intervention, namely Colby Jean Fishing and Arceneaux Whitetail. She relies on the evidence in the record on appeal to support her exception.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2163(A) allows an appellate court to consider a peremptory exception filed for the first time in that court ‘ if proof of the ground of the exception appears of record.” The peremptory exception of no right of action tests whether the plaintiff has any real and actual interest in judicially enforcing the right asserted. See La. C.C.P. arts. 681 and 927(A)(6). Simply stated, the objection of no right of action tests whether this particular plaintiff, as a matter of law, has an interest in the claim sued on. Labranche v. Landry, 2022-0461 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/15/22), 357 So. 3d 395, 405. The objection does not raise the question of the plaintiff's ability to prevail on the merits. Id.

The party raising a peremptory exception bears the burden of proof on the exception. Jenkins v. City of Baton Rouge, 2014-1235 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/9/15), 166 So. 3d 1032, 1035. To prevail on a peremptory exception of no right of action, the exceptor must show that the plaintiff does not have an interest in the subject matter of the suit or legal capacity to proceed with the suit. Labranche, 357 So. 3d at 405.

In the petition for intervention, LSWT and LTS sought reimbursement in the amount of $4,283,176.59 for personal expenses of Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux paid by the Intervenors during their marriage.¹¹ In support of her exception, which seems to apply only to the reimbursement of the expenses paid by the Intervenors during the marriage, Mrs. Hargroder relies on two exhibits contained in the record on appeal. The first is entitled “Account Transactions - Colby Jean Fishing Transfers from Operating Companies May 2018-Current.” Mrs. Hargroder contends that this indicates that Colby Jean Fishing loaned Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux $860,526.16. The second record relied on by Mrs. Hargroder is entitled “Account Transactions - Arceneaux Whitetail Transfers from Operating Companies May 2018-Current.” Mrs. Hargroder contends that this indicates that Arceneaux Whitetail loaned Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux $2,171,809.43. She argues that these amounts, totaling $3,032,335.59, form part of the $4,281,176.59 awarded by the trial court to LWTS and LTS, and that LWTS and LTS have no right to assert claims for these amounts.

There is no evidence in the record on appeal to support Mrs. Hargroder's contention that the amounts allegedly loaned by Colby Jean Fishing and Arceneaux Whitetail form any part of the $4,283,176.59 reimbursement sought by LSWT and LTS. We find that Mrs. Hargroder failed to prove that LTWS and LTS have no interest in the suit. Accordingly, we overrule her exception of no right of action.

(2) Expenditures Made by The Intervenors Through May 17, 2018

On appeal, Mrs. Hargroder argues the Intervenors failed to meet their burden of proof to show for what purpose the claimed sums were advanced. She argues the company records prior to May 2018 lack any specificity whatsoever, and only generalizations were offered as to the nature of the majority of expenditures.¹² She also argues the amounts owed to LSWT and LTS should be offset by “due to” accounts in the books of Colby Jean Fishing and Arceneaux Whitetail. She further argues the trial court committed manifest error by denying her Exception of Prescription as it related to claims filed more than three years before intervention.¹³

(a) Proof of Expenditures

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court noted that Mr. Arceneaux testified that on the advice of his former accountant, the Arceneaux companies paid for vacations and personal items, such as a houseboat, yachts, jet skis, rodeo trailers, and home improvements, through a special account. Mr. Arceneaux further testified that he knew the loans would have to be accounted for and paid back, particularly if the companies ever sold. The trial court also noted Mrs. Hargroder's testimony that she enjoyed the benefits of these expenditures during her marriage even though she claimed to have no idea where Mr. Arceneaux got the money. The trial court further indicated that Mrs. Hargroder did not dispute that the sums were used for community assets, only that the wrong companies were acting as the intervenors. In conclusion, the trial court found Mr. Arceneaux's testimony more credible on this issue and therefore found that the Intervenors were entitled to reimbursement of the loans made to the parties during the marriage.

In addition to the parties, Andy Dufrene, the chief operating officer of LSWT and LTS since November of 2018, testified at the partition trial. Mr. Dufrene confirmed that the loans to shareholders were reflected on the books of the companies since June 1, 2014. In connection with his testimony, the Intervenors introduced into evidence ledgers showing loans to shareholders from LTS from December 31, 2016 through April 10, 2018, totaling $208,644.62, and from LSWT from December 31, 2016 through May 17, 2018, totaling $4,074,531.97.¹⁴

Based upon our review of the evidence submitted in connection with the Intervenors’ claims, we find no manifest error in the trial court's award to LSWT and LTS in the amount of $4,281,176.59 for community expenditures made by the Intervenors through May 17, 2018.

(b) Set-Off

We next address Mrs. Hargroder's contention that the amount owed to LSWT and LTS should be offset by “due to” accounts in the books of Colby Jean Fishing and Arceneaux Whitetail indicating debt owed to the shareholders in the amount of $3,177,941.00. For any type of set-off to apply, two persons must owe to each other sums of money liquidated and presently due. See La. C.C. art. 1893. The defendant must be the creditor with respect to one obligation and debtor with respect to the other and vice versa for the plaintiffs. Ducote v. City of Alexandria, 95-1197 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/6/96), 670 So. 2d 1378, 1386.

Colby Jean Fishing and Arceneaux Whitetail are separate juridical entities from LSWT and LTS, and therefore there is no mutuality of obligors and Mrs. Hargroder is not entitled to set-off. See Ducote, 670 So. 2d at 1387.

(c) Exception of Prescription

On January 24, 2024, while her motion for new trial was pending, Mrs. Hargroder filed an exception of prescription, alleging that any shareholder debts that existed prior to 2016 were extinguished by prescription. She argued that La. C.C. art. 3494 provided a liberative prescriptive term of three years,¹⁵ the petition for intervention was filed in 2019, and she had never acknowledged any of the debts.

Mr. Arceneaux and the Intervenors filed a motion to strike the exception as untimely. They argued that the exception was untimely pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 928(B), which provides that a “peremptory exception may be pleaded at any stage of the proceeding in the trial court prior to a submission of the case for a decision.”¹⁶

At the hearing on the exception, citing the pending motion for new trial, the trial court addressed the merits of the exception. The trial court referenced Mr. Dufrene's testimony at the partition trial that the debt was carried on the companies’ books and acknowledged by the companies every year when the companies filed their tax returns. The trial court concluded that such action resulted in an acknowledgement that the loan was due. The trial court overruled the exception of prescription and signed a judgment in accordance with its oral ruling on February 26, 2024.

As noted above, La. C.C.P. art. 928(B) allows the filing of a peremptory exception “at any stage of the proceeding ․ prior to a submission of the case for a decision.” A case is considered submitted for decision upon the conclusion of trial, or, if the trial court orders post-trial briefs, the day following the last day for filing of briefs. See La. Sup. Ct. Gen. Admin. R. Pt. G. 2(a). This matter was submitted after the parties filed post-trial briefs, and a judgment was rendered on October 3, 2023. Thus, as Mrs. Hargroder filed the exception in the trial court after the case was submitted, we find her exception was not timely under the provisions of La. C.C.P. art. 928(B), and was appropriately denied.

Accordingly, we affirm that part of the October 3, 2023 judgment that awarded LSWT and LTS $4,281,176.59 for community expenditures made by the Intervenors through May 17, 2018.

(3) Expenses Paid by The Intervenors From May 13, 2018 Through March 31, 2022

The October 3, 2023 judgment also granted the claims of LSWT and LTS for their payment of expenses from May 13, 2018 through March 31, 2022, in the amount of $560,088.16 for certain property stipulated as community, namely, the former family home at 370 Green Acres St., a lot in Grand Isle, and a Yellowfin boat.

In connection with their claim, the Intervenors introduced bills for payments made in connection with the Green Acres residence, the Grand Isle lot, and the Yellowfin boat. Mr. Dufrene testified that LSWT paid insurance, property taxes and other expenses related to the Green Acres residence in the total amount of $117,726.40. He further testified that expenses for the Grand Isle lot in the amount of $104,265.14 and for the Yellowfin boat in the amount of $33 8,096.62 were paid for by checks drawn on the accounts of either Arceneaux Whitetail or Colby Jean Fishing. Mr. Dufrene further testified that company records reflected that from May 2, 2018 through June 5, 2020, the operating companies, i.e. LSWT and LTS, transferred $860,526.16 to Colby Jean Fishing, and from May 10, 2018 through March 3, 2022, the operating companies transferred $2,171,809.43 to Arceneaux Whitetail. Mr. Dufrene testified that Arceneaux Whitetail receives rent money from the operating companies, which was also included in the transfer amount. He confirmed that to his knowledge, there was no other source of income, besides the transfers from the operating companies, by which Arceneaux Whitetail or Colby Jean Fishing could have paid the expenses for the Grand Isle lot and the Yellowfin boat. Mr. Dufrene could not explain why money was advanced from LWTS and LTS to Arceneaux Whitetail and Colby Jean Fishing to pay certain debts of the community.

Counsel for the Intervenors sought leave to amend the petition of intervention “to match up to the facts and then add as the intervening companies Arceneaux Whitetail and Colby Jean Fishing.” The trial court denied Intervenors’ request to amend the petition, but indicated it would consider in its ruling that LSWT and LTS, as the operating companies, were supporting Arceneaux Whitetail and Colby Jean Fishing. The trial court ultimately granted reimbursement to LSWT and LTS for the sums admittedly paid by Arceneaux Whitetail and Colby Jean Fishing.

A party who demands performance of an obligation must prove the existence of the obligation. La. C.C. art. 1831. In this case, the Intervenors proved they paid $117,726.40 on behalf of Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux in connection with the former community residence. The Intervenors failed to prove that they paid any other amounts on behalf of Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux. Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in awarding the Intervenors any sums in excess of that amount. We amend that part of the judgment that awarded LSWT and LTS the amount of $560,088.16 for the payment of expenses from May 13, 2018 through March 31, 2022, by reducing the amount to $117,726.40.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we overrule the exception of no right of action filed by Darnelle Bordelon Arceneaux Hargroder. We affirm the February 26, 2024 judgment denying the exception of prescription filed by Darnelle Bordelon Arceneaux Hargroder. We reverse that portion of the October 3, 2023 judgment that classifies (1) the USDA loan as a community liability valued at -$23,890,672.86; (2) the South Lafourche Bank loan as a community liability valued at -$1,785,947.76; (3) the Crenshaw Family Holdings note as a community liability valued at -$2,266,667.00; and (4) the State Bank loan as a community liability valued at -$2,243,071.00. We reverse that portion of the judgment that values the 1% ownership in the Tank Specialties Group at $277,699.10. We render judgment valuing the 1% ownership of Tank Specialties Group at -$25,848.26. We further reverse that portion of the judgment that granted the claims of Louisiana SW Transportation, Inc. and Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC for their payment of expenses from May 13, 2018 through March 31, 2022, in the amount of $560,088.16, and render judgment in the amount of $117,726.40. We reverse that portion of the judgment that values the former community at -$23,763,005.04 and finds the former community to be insolvent. In all other respects, the October 3, 2023 judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to recalculate the value of the former community, re-allocate assets if necessary, and calculate an equalizing payment if one is due. Costs of this appeal are assessed one-half to Darnelle Bordelon Arceneaux Hargroder and one-half to Bryan David Arceneaux and Intervenors, Louisiana SW Transportation, Inc. and Louisiana Tank Specialties, LLC.

EXCEPTION OF NO RIGHT OF ACTION OVERRULED; FEBRUARY 26, 2024 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; OCTOBER 3, 2023 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

FOOTNOTES

2.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 922 recognizes only three exceptions: the declinatory exception, the dilatory exception, and the peremptory exception. In this case, Mrs. Hargroder filed a peremptory exception pleading the objection of prescription and also filed a peremptory exception pleading the objection of no right of action. See La. C.C.P. art. 927. Herein, for brevity, we refer to those exceptions as an exception of prescription and an exception of no right of action.

3.   Mrs. Hargroder previously filed a petition for divorce in September 2017, which she dismissed when the parties briefly reconciled.

4.   The parties also formed Magnolia Manufacturing LLC during the marriage, but this company was dissolved in 2019.

5.   Mrs. Hargroder filed a petition to declare the Trust null and void on March 19, 2019, which was consolidated with the suit for divorce. Following a trial, the trial court found the Trust was valid. The judgment was affirmed by this Court. Arceneaux v. Arceneaux, 2022-0814 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/3/23), 364 So. 3d 529, 551, writ denied, 2023-00641 (La. 9/6/23), 369 So. 3d 1271.

6.   Certified Public Accountant/Accredited in Business Valuation

7.   Certified Public Accountant/Certified Valuation Analyst/Chartered Global Management Accountant

8.   The total debts of LSWT and LTS were stipulated by the parties to be $27,943,287.62 as of April 11, 2022 ($23,890,672.86 + $1,785,947.76 + $2,266,667.00). We note this differs from the outstanding debt included by Mr. Bergeron in his valuation, which was $30,354,736.00 as of December 31, 2021.

9.   An obligation incurred by a spouse after termination of a community property regime is a separate obligation. See La. C.C. art. 2363 and 1979 Revision Comment (a); Benoit v. Benoit, 2011-0376 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/8/12), 91 So. 3d 1015, 1023, writ denied, 2012-1265 (La. 9/28/12), 98 So. 3d 838.

10.   Although Mrs. Hargroder argues in connection with her assignments of error related to the claims of the Intervenors that Arceneaux Whitetail is a separate juridical entity from LSWT and LTS, she does not separately address this loan or how it affects the value of Arceneaux Whitetail included as a community asset in the October 3, 2023 judgment. Mr. Comeaux valued a 100% ownership interest in Arceneaux Whitetail at $1,904,000.00. Mr. Bergeron testified he did not value Arceneaux Whitetail. The October 3, 2023 judgment lists the value of a 1% ownership interest in Arceneaux Whitetail as a community asset valued at $45,980.00. As neither party has objected to the trial court's valuation, we do not amend the judgment in any respect as to the value of Arceneaux Whitetail.

11.   As noted above, the Intervenors also sought reimbursement in the amount of $529,684.66 for expenses paid on behalf of Mrs. Hargroder and Mr. Arceneaux by the Intervenors after the termination of the community.

12.   She also argues the company records show the advanced sums were for payroll for other companies. However, the records she refers to reflect transfers from May 2018-March 2022 (after termination of the community).

13.   The denial of a peremptory exception of prescription is interlocutory in nature and generally not appealable; however, 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 the review of the final judgment appealed from. La. C.C.P. arts. 1841 and 2083; Guidry v. USAgencies Casualty Insurance Company, Inc., 2016-0562 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/16/17), 213 So. 3d 406, 420, writ denied, 2017-0601 (La. 5/26/17), 221 So. 3d 81.

14.   These loans total $4,283,176.59, the same amount claimed by the Intervenors in their petition. We note that this differs from the amount of $4,281,176.59 awarded in the October 3, 2023 judgment.

15.   Louisiana Civil Code art. 3494(3) provides that an action on money lent is subject to a liberative prescription of three years.

16.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 928 provides the time for pleading a peremptory exception in the trial court, while Article 2163 provides the procedure for filing a peremptory exception in the appellate court. However, Mrs. Hargroder did not file the exception in this Court.

PENZATO, J.