MALCOLM SUTTER v. COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT RENEE BROWN JEFFERY HARMON LAKESHORE ESTATES HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION INC AND ALLEN CHAMPAGNE (2026)

In this appeal, the plaintiff challenges a judgment granting the defendants’ exception of res Judicata and dismissing his suit against them with prejudice. After review, we deny the plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental brief, reverse the judgment, and remand.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 28, 2024, Malcolm Sutter filed this suit against Community Management, LLC; Renee Brown; Jeffery P. Harmon; Lakeshore Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.; and Allen Champagne in the 22nd Judicial District Court under that court's docket number 2024-15865 (“2024 suit”). On January 17, 2025, the defendants filed an exception of res judicata contending Mr. Sutter's “causes of action [in the 2024 suit] arise out of the same transactions or occurrence[s] which were the subject matter of case nos. 19-14072 c/w 21-11520, Div. C. of the 22nd JDC, St. Tammany” (“2021 suit”). The defendants claimed the trial court's decisions rendered in the 2021 suit are res judicata as to Mr. Sutter's claims in the 2024 suit. In support of their exception, the defendants “adopt[ed] and incorporate[ed] by reference the pleadings and judgments” in the 2021 suit - but, the defendants did not file any of those referenced documents into the record of the 2024 suit. Mr. Sutter opposed the exception, arguing the parties and issues in the 2024 suit were not the same as those in the 2021 suit.

On June 18, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the defendants’ res judicata exception. The parties argued the exception at the hearing, but neither side introduced evidence. At the end of the hearing, the trial court orally granted the exception, and on July 9, 2025, signed a judgment granting the exception and dismissing Mr. Sutter's 2024 suit with prejudice. On July 31, 2025, at Mr. Sutter's request, the trial court signed written reasons for judgment.

Mr. Sutter appeals the July 9, 2025 judgment, claiming the 2021 suit judgment is not res Judicata as to the 2024 suit, because the 2021 suit judgment is currently on appeal before this Court under our docket number 2025 CA 1052 c/w 2025 CA 1053.

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. The objection of res Judicata is raised by a peremptory exception. La. C.C.P. art. 927(A)(3). Evidence may be introduced to support or controvert a 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 party pleading res judicata has the burden of proving the facts essential to support the exception. Wicker, 257 So.3d at 821.

A cornerstone of res Judicata is a valid and final judgment. When, however, there is no proof of a final judgment, res Judicata cannot be granted. See La. R.S. 13:4231;¹ State ex rel. Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 2020-0595 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/7/21), 330 So.3d 1107, 1113, n.5, writ denied, 2021-01773 (La. 3/14/23), 357 So.3d 829; In re Succession of Carlton, 2011-288 (La. App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11), 77 So.3d 989, 993, writ denied, 2011-2840 (La. 3/2/12), 84 So.3d 532; Bond v. Bond, 35,971 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/3/02), 813 So.2d 1148, 1149-50. That is, when the record contains no proof of the final judgment, and the appellate record contains no evidence demonstrating the matter was previously adjudicated, the appellate court must reverse the judgment granting the exception of res Judicata and remand the matter to the trial court. 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, 607-08; also see Richard v. David, 2025-30 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/14/25), 416 So.3d 669, 672; White v. Cox Operating, LLC, 2016-0901 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/5/17), 229 So.3d 534, 539; and Carlton, 77 So.3d at 993. When the trial court simply alludes to a prior judgment in granting a res Judicata exception but neither the record nor the judgment from the prior suit has been introduced into evidence, the exceptor fails to meet his burden of proof on the exception. Union Planters Bank v. Commercial Capital Holding Corporation, 2004-0871 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 907 So.2d 129, 130-31; also see Bovie v. St. John the Baptist Parish, Department of Streets and Roads, 13-162 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/4/13), 125 So.3d 1158, 1161-62 and Louisiana Business College v. Crump, 474 So.2d 1366, 1369 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1985). And, although a trial court can take judicial notice of a prior judgment rendered in its own district, such notice is insufficient evidence for an appellate court to affirm a judgment dismissing a suit on the basis of res judicata. Horrell v. Alltmont, 2019-0945 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/31/20), 309 So.3d 754, 761.

Herein, the defendants filed no evidence with their exception of res judicata in the trial court and introduced no evidence at the June 18, 2025 hearing at which the trial court heard and ruled on the exception. Thus, notwithstanding any other requirements necessary to prove res judicata, the defendants have failed to prove that there is a “valid and final judgment” in the 2021 suit that bars the 2024 suit. See Jefferson, 341 So.3d at 607-08; Tureau, 330 So.3d at 1113, n.5; Carlton, 77 So.3d at 993. Notably, in its July 9, 2025 judgment, the trial court does not identify the “valid and final judgment” that is the basis of its ruling. Further, its July 31, 2025 reasons for judgment show that the trial court was obviously familiar with the 2021 suit - but, its reasons merely allude to, but do not specifically identify, a specific judgment in the 2021 suit that ostensibly bars the 2024 suit. Rather, the written reasons simply reference “the judgments rendered by Judge Swartz in the earlier litigation are valid and final judgments.” However, without a specifically identified judgment or judgments, we cannot ascertain which claims the trial court adjudicated in the 2021 suit nor the relief granted. See Bovie, 125 So.3d at 1161-62; Union Planters, 907 So.2d at 130-31; Louisiana Business College, 474 So.2d at 1369.

Further, we reject the defendants’ reliance on La. C.C.P. art. 853 as authority to “adopt” the pleadings and judgments from the 2021 suit to prove their exception of res judicata in the 2024 suit. Under La. C.C.P. art. 853, a “statement in a pleading may be adopted by reference ․ in another pleading in the same court.” The adoption of a “statement” in a pleading in one suit does not constitute evidentiary proof of facts in another suit and is not a substitute for actually proving the elements of res judicata. For this same reason, we also reject the defendants’ attempt to reference documents in the record of this Court's docket number 2025 CA 1052 c/w 2025 CA 1053, another appeal from the 2021 suit, to show that res judicata is proper in this case.

In sum, the appellate record contains no evidence showing that the present matter has been previously adjudicated. Without evidence, the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving their exception of res judicata. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand this matter to the trial court, where the defendants will have the opportunity to re-urge the exception in accordance with La. C.C.P. art. 928(B). See Jefferson, 341 So.3d at 608.²

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the July 9, 2025 judgment granting the exception of res judicata filed by Community Management, LLC; Renee Brown; Jeffery P. Harmon; Lakeshore Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.; and Allen Champagne. We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings. We deny Malcolm Sutter's motion to filed a supplemental brief. We assess costs of the appeal to Community Management, LLC; Renee Brown; Jeffery P. Harmon; Lakeshore Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.; and Allen Champagne.

REVERSED AND REMANDED; MOTION TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 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.

2.   Based on our holding herein, we pretermit consideration of Mr. Sutter's assigned errors on appeal. See Jefferson, 341 So.3d at 608, n.1.

GREENE, J.