JAMES MAJOR v. DELORIS MAJOR (2025)

Deloris Major appeals the Zachary City Court's judgments denying her declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens and granting a judgment of eviction against her.¹ For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 8, 2024, James Major filed a petition for eviction in Zachary City Court seeking to evict Deloris Major from the premises located at 1725 Debby Avenue in Zachary, Louisiana. The petition for eviction alleged that after James made repeated, but unsuccessful, requests for Deloris to vacate the property, which James maintained was his sole and separate property, he initiated the eviction process by giving Deloris written notice of eviction on March 12, 2024, as witnessed by Eleanor Carline. James prayed that following a hearing, Deloris be evicted from the property and be cast with costs of the proceeding. The hearing on the matter was scheduled for April 16, 2024.

On April 15, 2024, Deloris responded by filing a declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens. Within her exception, Deloris asserted that a prior suit had been filed in the Family Court of East Baton Rouge Parish (“Family Court”), Docket Number 221,371, with a trial set for July 19, 2024, regarding all of the issues pertaining to co-owned property between she and James, who were previously married. Deloris further averred that she had been paying the mortgage on the home at 1725 Debby Avenue and was entitled to reimbursement in an amount that exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the Zachary City Court. Thus, as all issues pertaining to the parties’ properties and their respective claims were pending before the Family Court, which suit was filed first, the eviction proceeding should be dismissed.

In his opposition to Deloris’ exception, James admitted that the parties were involved in ongoing litigation before the Family Court. However, James asserted that the property at issue in the eviction was outside of the scope of the community property partition. James averred that he and Deloris had contracted into a separate property regime prior to their marriage, and that the only property subject to partition in Family Court was located at 1924 Rollins Road, Zachary, Louisiana. James confirmed the Family Court July 19, 2024 trial date regarding “co-owned property,” which did not include the 1725 Debby Avenue premises, and further asserted that there had been no pleading filed or relief requested with regards to the 1725 Debby Avenue property under Family Court Docket Number 221,371. Turning to the eviction suit, James asserted that he allowed Deloris to stay at 1725 Debby Avenue on a month to month basis, in exchange for her paying the mortgage. At this juncture, James desired that Deloris vacate the property; she refused, and so he filed the instant action for eviction. Because the evidence showed that 1725 Debby Avenue was James’ separate property and that the parties had entered into a marital agreement which kept their assets separate, including this property, Deloris had no valid claim for reimbursement or co-ownership, nor could James be deprived of the use, management and occupancy of his own property.² Therefore, James concluded that Deloris should be immediately evicted from 1725 Debby Avenue, as the doctrine of lis pendens was inapplicable to this eviction proceeding.

A hearing on both the exception and eviction was held on June 11, 2024. The court first took up the matter of Deloris’ exception, during which Deloris made specific reference to the Family Court proceeding, and quoted La. R.S. 13:1401 ³ with regards to her argument that only the Family Court had jurisdiction over this property matter. Deloris then referenced a stipulated judgment executed by the Family Court on September 8, 2020, which provided in pertinent part, “the parties right to seek the use and occupancy of the former matrimonial domicile and all issues related thereto are reserved.” Deloris asserted that this language amounted to the Family Court ordering the “status quo” remain between the parties until the property was partitioned, which was set to occur at the July 19, 2024 trial. Deloris admitted that the 1725 Debby Avenue property was legally James’ separate property; however, that fact was immaterial as the Family Court had jurisdiction over all property claims.

The court found La. R.S. 9:374 to be the applicable statute dealing with use and occupancy of separate property following termination of a marriage, rather than La. R.S. 13:1401; because 1725 Debby Avenue was admittedly separate property, its use could not be subject to the trial for partition of co-owned property set for July 19, 2024 before the Family Court. The court further found that nothing regarding the eviction would have any effect on Deloris’ alleged reimbursement claims. Thus, the court orally denied the declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens, finding that the use and occupancy of 1725 Debby Avenue was not before the Family Court, thereby finding the eviction proceeding to be properly before the city court. Deloris declared her intent to seek review of this ruling, but then all parties agreed to proceed with the eviction, and Deloris indicated she would appeal both matters following the ruling on the eviction.

During the trial on the eviction, James affirmed that the 1725 Debby Avenue property was his separate property. He further testified that following his divorce from Deloris, he allowed her to stay in that property based on an oral agreement between the parties that once the former matrimonial domicile was sold, James would move back into his separate property, 1725 Debby Avenue, and Deloris would vacate that property and move to her own separate house. James also testified that Deloris agreed to pay the mortgage in exchange for staying at the residence. James testified that the former matrimonial domicile had since been sold and he desired to be restored to exclusive use and possession of 1725 Debby Avenue, as that was his separate property and he had no other place to reside.⁴ The petition of eviction was admitted into evidence, and the court granted the eviction and orally ruled that Deloris vacate the house located on 1725 Debby Avenue within 24 hours. Following the court's disposition, Deloris moved to suspensively appeal the ruling in accordance with La. Code Civ. P. art. 4735, with the court setting the appeal bond amount at that time.

In her suspensive appeal, Deloris asserts that Zachary City Court manifestly erred in failing to recognize that the Family Court had prior and exclusive jurisdiction pertaining to the property belonging to Deloris and James when it denied Deloris’ declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens and proceeded with the eviction, which it in turn granted. Therefore, Deloris prayed this court reverse the ruling of the Zachary City Court denying her exception of lis pendens and granting the eviction, as the eviction was filed in the wrong venue and should have been addressed by the Family Court.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 531 provides:

When two or more actions are pending in a Louisiana court or courts on the same transaction or occurrence, between the same parties in the same capacities, the defendant may have all but the first action dismissed by excepting thereto as provided in Article 925. When the defendant does not so except, the plaintiff may continue the prosecution of any of the suits, but the first final judgment rendered shall be conclusive of all.

Thus, for lis pendens to apply, La. Code Civ. P. art. 531 requires that (1) two or more suits are pending in a Louisiana court or courts; (2) on the same transaction or occurrence; and (3) between the same parties in the same capacities. The test established to determine if an objection raising the exception of lis pendens should be sustained is the same as that for res judicata’, thus, an exception raising the objection of lis pendens should be sustained if a final judgment in the first suit would be res judicata in the subsequently filed suit. Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2014-1708 (La. 10/14/15), 180 So.3d 266, 269. The party pleading lis pendens has the burden of proving the facts necessary for the exception to be granted. Crosstex Energy Services, LP v. Texas Brine Company, LLC, 2018-1323 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/8/19), 282 So.3d 234, 236.

Evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens when the grounds for the exception do not appear from the petition. La. Code Civ. P. art 930. If no evidence is presented at trial, then the court must render its decision based on the facts alleged in the petition, with all allegations therein being accepted as true. Couvillion v. Matherne, 2015-1762 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/3/16), 196 So.3d 706, 709, writ denied, 2016-1559 (La. 11/18/16), 213 So.3d 386. Evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically placed in the record. Documents attached to memoranda do not constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such on appeal. Id.

We note that Deloris failed to introduce any evidence during the hearing on the declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens, and therefore, this court may only consider the petition for eviction to determine whether the exception was properly denied.⁵ As there is no allegation in the petition of eviction regarding any pending litigation between the parties regarding this property, we find that Deloris did not carry her burden of proof and the declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens was properly denied.

Deloris does not raise as error nor argue any issue regarding the merits of the eviction itself, only the Zachary City Court's lack of jurisdiction based upon her claim of lis pendens. Because we find the Zachary City Court had jurisdiction over the eviction proceeding, we affirm Zachary City Court's June 11, 2024 judgment of eviction.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we find the Zachary City Court properly denied Deloris Major's declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens and proceeded with the eviction matter pending before the court. We further affirm the court's June 11, 2024 judgment in favor of James Major evicting Deloris Major from 1725 Debby Avenue, Zachary, Louisiana. All costs of this proceeding are assessed to Deloris Major.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the denial of a declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens is an interlocutory judgment, Roberson v. Roberson, 2012-2052 (La. App. 1st Cir. 8/5/13), 122 So.3d 561, 564, when an appeal is taken from a final judgment determinative of the merits, the appellant is entitled to seek review of all adverse and prejudicial interlocutory judgments, in addition to the review of the final judgment. Carrollton Presbyterian Church v. Presbytery of South Louisiana of Presbyterian Church (USA), 2011-0205 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/14/11), 77 So.3d 975, 978-79, writ denied, 2011-2590 (La. 2/17/12), 82 So.3d 285, cert. denied sub nom. Presbytery of South Louisiana v. Carrollton Presbyterian Church of New Orleans, 568 U.S. 818, 133 S.Ct. 150, 184 L.Ed.2d 32 (2012).

2.   In support of his opposition to Deloris’ exception, James attached a copy of the parties’ marital contract demonstrating the parties entered into a separate property regime; the case management order from Family Court which set the trial of the “co-owned property partition” for July 19, 2024; a copy of the act of cash sale for 1725 Debby Avenue, dated July 5, 2001, showing only James as purchaser of the property; and a copy of the June 29, 2023 stipulated judgment, which provided that the house jointly owned should be appraised and sold, with proceeds being placed in the court registry, where they would remain until the conclusion of trial on all pending claims between the parties.

3.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:1401, titled “Family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge; establishment; jurisdiction” provides in pertinent part:A. There is hereby established the family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge, which shall be a court of record with exclusive jurisdiction in the following proceedings:***(2)(a) All actions between spouses or former spouses for partition of community property and property acquired pursuant to a matrimonial regime.***(c) All actions for the settlement and enforcement of claims arising from matrimonial regimes or the establishment thereof.(d) All actions between former spouses seeking the enforcement of a judicial or contractual settlement of claims provided in this Subsection.

4.   Eleanor Carline testified that she witnessed James post the eviction notice on the door of 1725 Debby Avenue on March 12, 2024.

5.   Although a court may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, La. Code Evid. Art. 202 does not allow courts to take judicial notice of other courts’ proceedings. Documentation of other courts’ proceedings must be offered into evidence in the usual manner. Pinegar v. Harris, 2006-2489 (La. App. 1st Cir. 5/4/07), 961 So.2d 1246, 1249.

FIELDS, J.