JOEY RICHARD v. JESSICA CATHERINE RICHARD DAVID (2025)

Plaintiff, Joey Richard, appeals the decision of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court granting a peremptory exception of res judicata filed by Defendant, Jessica Catherine Richard David, resulting in the dismissal of his suit. For the reasons explained below, we vacate the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joey Richard is Jessica David's father. In his “Petition for Breach of Contract Within Mortgage Agreement,” the suit at issue, he entered into a mortgage agreement with Jessica regarding immovable property at 3413 West Gloria Switch Road, Church Point, La. He claims this mortgage was created in his favor to secure a $450,000 promissory note. The note was attached to Joey's petition but was not signed by Jessica.

Joey alleged that “[a]t no time did the Petitioner intend to divest the Property to Defendant gratuitously and the Defendant is aware of that.” However, the petition acknowledges the property was donated to Jessica. The act of donation contains no conditions other than a usufruct Joey reserved for himself.

Despite the lack of conditions within the four corners of the act of donation, the petition states there were conditions put upon this donation, including that Jessica would maintain the property and its structures to the level of condition existing at the time of donation. Joey then claims Jessica demolished and removed a structure from the property, which violated the terms of the mortgage agreement and conditions for donation. Ultimately, Joey prayed for the acceleration of the maturity of the amounts secured by the mortgage and for the dissolution of the act of donation.

The petition at issue on appeal is apparently not the first time Joey has challenged the donation. The record lacks the suit records and judgments from these prior suits, but the following comes from representations of Jessica's counsel: Joey previously attempted to rescind the donation on the grounds of ingratitude, breach of contract, and error of law. A trial was held in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, resulting in a judgment in favor of Jessica upholding the donation.

Joey then allegedly filed a petition for “Revocation for Ingratitude or Alternatively for Dissolution of Donation” on July 7, 2023. Again, based on representations of counsel, Joey is said to have argued that the building at issue in his current petition had not been rebuilt; thus, Jessica's failure to rebuild constituted ingratitude. That claim appears similar to the one asserted here.

Jessica claims she filed an exception of res judicata in that proceeding, which was granted and the judgment signed on May 28, 2024. Joey claims he first noticed the structure at issue had been demolished around the middle of May 2023, but he did not introduce evidence or argue this in the above-mentioned proceeding.

Finally, after the hearing on the above referenced exception, but shortly before the judgment was signed, on May 13, 2024, Joey filed his “Breach of Contract Within Mortgage Agreement,” the petition at issue here. Not surprisingly, Jessica again filed an exception of res judicata. This suit was assigned to a different division of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court from the previous two petitions. The trial court granted the exception of res judicata, and Joey now seeks appellate review of that judgment.

Problematically, nothing from the prior two suit's records is in evidence for this appellate record. Met with only the unsubstantiated suggestions of parties, this court is left to guess at what claims were put forth and the nature and the scope of the prior judgments.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing a decision on an exception of res judicata, the court must determine whether the trial court's decision was legally correct. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ., Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Dixie Brewing Co., Inc., 13-250, 13-251, 13-252 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/14/13), 131 So.3d 130, writ denied, 14-0007 (La. 2/12/14), 132 So.3d 399. Whether a prior judgment has the effect of res judicata in later litigation is a question of law, thus, requiring a de novo review. Riggs v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21-218 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/22), 337 So.3d 950. Manifest error only applies to the trial court's ruling on the issue of res judicata when evidence is received by the trial court. Leray v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 05-2051 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/3/06), 950 So.2d 707. No evidence was submitted in this matter.

LAW AND ARGUMENT

The burden of proof in a peremptory exception of res judicata rests with the party filing the exception. Johnson v. Natchitoches Cmty. Improvement Found., Inc., 21-595 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/30/22), 350 So.3d 557. If any doubt exists regarding the application of res judicata, the objection must be overruled. Landry v. Town of Livingston Police Dept., 10-673 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/22/10), 54 So.3d 772.

Several statutes address the application of res judicata. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 provides, in part, that “all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished․” Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 425 requires that a party “assert all causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation” or lose the ability to prosecute those causes of action.

The jurisprudence is clear, however, that when neither party introduces any evidence of the prior judgment, and the record on appeal is otherwise devoid of submitted evidence that would demonstrate the matter was previously adjudicated, the appellate court must vacate the judgment granting the exception of res judicata and remand the matter back to the district court. See White v. Cox Operating, LLC, 16-901 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/5/17), 229 So.3d 534; Bond v. Bond, 35,971 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 1148; and La. Business College v. Crump, 474 So.2d 1366 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985). Without such evidence, a court of appeal cannot review the correctness of the trial court's judgment, and when “there is no proof of such facts in the record, the plea [of res judicata] cannot be sustained.” Bond at 1150.

In Bond, the court explained:

․ [N]either the judgment from the prior suit nor any part of the record in the prior suit was introduced by either party and, therefore, is not part of the record on appeal. We find that it was incumbent on Defendant to introduce the requisite documentary evidence to sustain the plea, without which Defendant could not meet his burden of proof on the exception.

Id.

In vacating and remanding the trial court's granting of the exception of res judicata, the court in Bond specifically noted “that the peremptory exception may be reurged in the trial court in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 928(B).” Id.

The court in La. Business College v. Crump, supra, faced a similar deficiency in the record. The trial court there alluded to the prior suit, but neither the suit record nor the judgments were introduced into evidence. The Crump court, as in Bond, found the mover failed to meet his burden of proof with the exception of res judicata. The court emphasized that there is no provision in the law for an appellate court to take judicial notice of the suit records in another court. It is therefore incumbent on the party urging the exception to introduce the prior judgment and suit record into evidence at the trial of the exception. Crump at 1369.

In this case, neither party introduced any testimony or evidence at the trial on the exception of res judicata. This Court can only speculate as to the contents of the previous suit records and judgments. Consequently, we vacate the entirety of the judgment and remand this case to the trial court.

DECREE

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and vacated. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of the appeal are assessed equally between Appellant and Appellee.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

CLAYTON DAVIS JUDGE