ESTATE OF RITA WALZ v. AMBER WALZ (2026)

A legatee of the decedent seeks reversal of a judgment of the City Court of Hammond, Seventh Ward, overruling her exceptions raising the objections of lis pendens and res judicata to the “Motion and Rule for Possession” filed by the executor of the decedent's estate.¹ For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This appeal concerns immovable property on South Range Road in Ponchatoula, Louisiana belonging to the Estate of Rita Walz (“the Estate”). It is undisputed that one of the legatees of the Estate, Amber Walz (“Walz”), took up residence at the subject property (“the premises”). In 2023, the Estate filed a petition for occupancy and injunctive relief (“petition for occupancy”) in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court (“the 21st JDC”) to enjoin Walz from continuing to occupy the premises. On July 5, 2023, the 21st JDC signed a judgment whereby it granted the requested injunctive relief and directed Walz to vacate the premises within 30 days of service of the judgment. Walz was served with the 21st JDC judgment on July 11,2023.

Approximately two years later, on June 24, 2025, the Estate filed a “Motion and Rule for Possession” (“petition for eviction”) in the City Court of Hammond (“the city court”), in which the Estate asserted that it served a notice to vacate on Walz on May 30, 2025, and that she failed to vacate the premises. Accordingly, the Estate prayed that Walz be ordered to appear and show cause why a judgment of eviction should not be rendered in favor of the Estate. In response, Walz filed peremptory exceptions raising the objections of lis pendens and res judicata. In support of the exception raising the objection of lis pendens, Walz argued that the same matter was filed in the 21st JDC involving the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same transaction or occurrence. As to the exception raising the objection of res judicata, Walz stated, “The matter has already been adjudicated by the [21st JDC].” Walz also opposed the petition for eviction, stating only that she “cannot be commanded to leave the house as she is a co-owner of the same.”

The city court held a hearing on the petition for eviction and Walz's exceptions on August 13, 2025. The parties stipulated to certain facts for purposes of the exceptions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the city court overruled Walz's exceptions, finding that the eviction proceeding related to a different subject matter than that which was before the 21st JDC. Thereafter, the city court ruled on the Estate's petition for eviction. It stated that “based on [the 21st JDC] judgment, [Walz] lost ․ her status as an occupant of the property” and that the Estate may “move forward and order that she vacate the property.” The city court signed a judgment on August 13, 2025, in favor of the Estate and against Walz, granting the Estate's petition for eviction and commanding Walz to vacate the premises by noon on September 13, 2025. The judgment further stated that “defendant's exceptions are overruled [and] denied.” Walz appeals,² arguing only that her exceptions should have been sustained.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Lis pendens and res judicata are known as preclusion doctrines, and preclusion doctrines are stricti juris. Thus, any doubt concerning the application of either must be resolved against its application. Robbins v. Delta Wire Rope, Inc., 2015-1757 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/3/16), 196 So.3d 700, 705.

Lis Pendens

The doctrine of lis pendens is codified in La. C.C.P. art. 531, which states: “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[.]” Thus, for lis pendens to apply, La. C.C.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. Major v. Major, 2024-1211 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/1/25), 417 So.3d 1022, 1026-27. The test to determine if an exception raising the objection of lis pendens should be sustained is whether a final judgment in the first suit would be res judicata in the second suit. The party pleading lis pendens has the burden of proving the facts necessary for the exception to be sustained. Major, 417 So.3d at 1027.

The objection of lis pendens is raised by declinatory exception. La. C.C.P. art. 925(A)(3). On the trial of a declinatory exception, evidence may be introduced to support or controvert any objection pleaded when the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition, the citation, or return thereon. La. C.C.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. Major, 417 So.3d at 1027. The district court's ruling on an objection of lis pendens presents a question of law; thus, it is reviewed de novo. Patten/Jenkins BR Popeyes, L.L.C. v. SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C., 2019-1160 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/16/20), 306 So.3d 453, 457-58.

Walz argues that the subject matter of the city court suit, i.e., whether Walz has a legal right to be present on the premises, was previously litigated via the petition for occupancy filed in the 21st JDC. The Estate, on the other hand, argues that the exception was properly overruled because the issue of eviction pending before the city court is a separate and distinct cause of action from the determinations made by the 21st JDC, i.e., whether Walz, as a legatee, maintained a right of occupancy relating to the premises. In addition, the Estate argues Walz appeared in the 21st JDC proceeding in her capacity as a legatee, while, in the city court proceeding, she appeared in her capacity as an occupant.

In this case, the parties stipulated to the following facts: (1) the Estate's property remains under administration; (2) the Estate filed a petition for occupancy against Walz in the 21st JDC in 2023; (3) Walz was served with the petition for occupancy; (4) the district court ordered Walz to vacate the premises within 30 days of service of the 21st JDC judgment on the petition for occupancy; (5) Walz was served with a copy of the 21st JDC judgment on the petition for occupancy on July 11, 2023; (6) Walz continued to occupy the premises and has remained there as of the date of the hearing; (7) an additional notice to vacate was served on Walz on May 30, 2025; and (8) Walz was given a 30-day and a 60-day extension to remain on the premises, both of which expired by the time of the hearing on the exceptions. The parties also agreed to introduce the service information for the petition of occupancy filed in the 21st JDC; the 21st JDC judgment on the petition for occupancy signed on July 5, 2023; and the service information for the July 5, 2023 judgment.

It is undisputed that two lawsuits are pending. The second requirement for lis pendens to apply is that the two pending suits involve the same transaction or occurrence. Patten/Jenkins BR Popeyes, 306 So.3d at 458. No one test exists to determine what constitutes the same transaction or occurrence; such determination is made on a case-by-case basis. Patten/Jenkins BR Popeyes, 306 So.3d at 458.

The first-filed suit by the Estate was instituted in the 21st JDC for the purpose of administering the decedent's estate.³ The second suit initiated by the Estate involves a petition for eviction. In the second suit, the Estate seeks to evict Walz, who lost the right to remain on the premises sometime prior to the hearing on the petition for eviction.

The transaction or occurrence that led to the succession proceeding, i.e., the death of Ms. Rita Walz, is separate and distinct from the transaction or occurrence that led to the eviction proceeding, i.e., Walz's continued presence on the premises despite losing the right to be there. Accordingly, we conclude the suits do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and therefore find the city court did not err in overruling the exception of lis pendens.

Res Judicata

Res judicata bars the relitigation of a subject matter arising from the same transaction or occurrence as a previous suit. Wicker v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, 2018-0225 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/21/18), 257 So.3d 817, 821. Res judicata is governed by La. R.S. 13:4231, which provides:

Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, 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 and merged in the judgment.

(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, 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 and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.

(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment.

The crucial inquiry is not whether the second suit is based on the same cause of action as the first suit, but whether the second suit asserts a cause of action that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first suit. Wicker, 257 So.3d at 821. All of the following elements must be satisfied in order for res judicata to preclude a second action: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause(s) of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause(s) of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation. Jefferson v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 2021-0716 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/3/22), 341 So.3d 603, 606 (citing Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002-1385 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1053). The doctrine of res judicata is not discretionary and mandates the effect to be given final judgments. Wicker, 257 So.3d at 821. Nevertheless, there are three exceptions to the preclusive effect of res judicata: (1) exceptional circumstances justify relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment; (2) the judgment dismissed the first action without prejudice; and (3) the judgment reserved the right of the plaintiff to bring another action. See La. R.S. 13:4232(A).

The objection of res judicata is raised by peremptory exception. La. C.C.P. art. 927(A)(3). Evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the peremptory exception when the exception is pleaded at or prior to trial and the grounds thereof do not appear from the petition. La. C.C.P. art. 931. The burden of proving the facts essential to support the objection of res judicata is on the party pleading the objection. Jefferson, 341 So.3d at 607. When a party raises an objection of res judicata, the court must examine not only the pleadings, but also the entire record in the first suit to determine whether the second suit is, in fact, barred by res judicata. Jefferson, 341 So.3d at 607.

In the absence of evidence, the peremptory exception must be decided on the facts alleged in the petition, which are accepted as true. Myers v. Houston Specialty Insurance Company, 2022-0480 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/22), 2022 WL 16707125, *2 (unpublished). The standard of review of a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata generally requires an appellate court to determine if the district court's decision is legally correct. Sutton v. Adams, 2022-01672 (La. 3/7/23), 356 So.3d 1030, 1032-33. However, when an objection of res judicata is raised before the case is submitted and evidence is received on the objection, the standard of review on appeal is manifest error with regard to the factual findings of the district court. Archote v. Tate, 2023-0982 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/3/24), 392 So.3d 393, 401. The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed on appeal de novo. Archote, 392 So.3d at 401.

Walz argues that all five of the requirements for res judicata are met. First, she alleges there was a valid and final judgment in the 21st JDC suit involving the same parties. Next, Walz alleges the causes of action asserted in the city court were available at the time of the rendering of the 21st JDC judgment. Lastly, Walz contends the causes of action in both the city court suit and the 21st JDC suit arose out of the same transaction or occurrence—i.e., Walz residing on the premises.

The Estate, on the other hand, argues the exception was properly denied because the 21st JDC judgment was determinative of whether Walz had a right of occupancy related to the premises in her capacity as a legatee, while the city court's determination related to Walz's continuing status as an occupant and the cessation of the purpose of that occupancy. The Estate further argues that the cause of action for the Estate to seek to evict Walz at the time the 21st JDC judgment was rendered would not have existed because the Estate needed to obtain a judgment reflecting that Walz's right of occupancy ceased prior to seeking to have Walz evicted.

The 21st JDC judgment signed on July 5, 2023, determines only certain issues in the succession, namely, whether Walz could reside on the premises during the administration of the succession. The resolution of this issue did not conclude the succession. By the parties’ stipulation, the succession remains in administration. There is no evidence that the heirs have been placed in possession of their respective portions of the estate or that a judgment homologating a final account by the administrator has been rendered. See La. C.C.P. art. 3337 (stating, in pertinent part, “A judgment homologating a final account has the same effect as a final judgment in an ordinary action.”). As the 21st JDC judgment is not conclusive of the succession proceeding, it does not constitute a final judgment. See Succession of Saucier, 2021-1466 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/29/22), 344 So.3d 108, 113. Therefore, the Estate's concession that the judgment at issue is a final judgment is incorrect. Since there is no final judgment from the 21st JDC suit, we find Walz did not carry her burden of proof on her exception raising the objection of res judicata, and therefore, the district court did not err in overruling the exception.

DECREE

For the above and foregoing reasons, the portion of the August 13, 2025 judgment of the City Court of Hammond, Seventh Ward, that overruled the exceptions of res judicata and lis pendens filed by Defendant, Amber Walz, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to Amber Walz.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although the denial of exceptions is an interlocutory judgment, 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. See Major v. Major, 2024-1211 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/1/25), 417 So.3d 1022, 1024 n.l.

2.   Notice of signing of judgment was mailed on August 13, 2025. Walz filed a motion for suspensive appeal on August 13, 2025, and the city court signed the order on that same date.

3.   Administration of the estate involves collecting, preserving, and managing the property of the succession in accordance with law. See La. C.C.P. art. 3191(A).

EDWARDS, J.

Theriot, J Advices with the result. GREENE, J. concurs.