Belinda Layssard Stokes v. Doris Barnhart Layssard

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 9, 2016
• Docket: CA-0015-0969
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-969

BELINDA LAYSSARD STOKES

VERSUS

DORIS BARNHART LAYSSARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 251,190 HONORABLE WILLIAM GREGORY BEARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and David Kent Savoie, Judges.

AFFIRMED. William M. Ford Attorney at Law P. O. Box 12424 Alexandria, LA 71315-2424 (318) 442-8899 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Doris Barnhart Layssard

William Alan Pesnell The Pesnell Law Firm, APLC P. O. Box 1794 Shreveport, LA 71166-1794 (318) 226-5577 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Belinda Layssard Stokes SAUNDERS, Judge

This is an appeal from a judgment granting the exceptions of res judicata and

prescription in favor of defendant, Doris Barnhart Layssard (hereinafter

“Layssard”), against plaintiff, Belinda Layssard Stokes (hereinafter “Stokes”). For

the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Layssard was married to Walter Layssard. The couple had seven children,

including Stokes. The couple owned a tract of land in Rapides Parish; an undivided

interest in the tract is the subject of the instant dispute. Mr. Layssard died in 1978,

and was survived by his wife and their children. Stokes inherited an undivided

1/14th interest in the subject property, and Layssard inherited the marital usufruct.

Although now divorced, when Layssard married again, she lost the marital usufruct

over Mr. Layssard’s share of the community property.

One of the children transferred his interest in the property to Layssard.

Thereafter, on January 10, 2005, the other six Layssard children, including Stokes,

purportedly signed a document donating their respective interests in the property to

Layssard. On June 19, 2012, Stokes challenged the validity of the January 10,

2005 transfer, alleging that the donation had not been properly confected, on the

grounds that the document was not actually signed in the presence of the notary

and two witnesses and, further, that she did not understand the nature of the

transaction.

After a bench trial, the trial court found that Stokes had not met her burden

of proof and, on September 6, 2013, issued written reasons for denying Stokes’

claims. Formal judgment followed on October 1, 2013. Stokes appealed, and the

judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Stokes v. Layssard, 14-45 (La.App. 3 Cir.

6/11/14), 140 So.3d 1258. On September 30, 2013, Stokes’ counsel, by written letter to counsel for

Layssard, requested that Stokes’ interest in the property be returned to her on the

grounds that she was destitute and in necessitous circumstances. Layssard

allegedly refused and, on October 2, 2014, Stokes filed a petition to revoke the

January 10, 2005 donation on the grounds of ingratitude, asserting that, “since the

events that gave rise” to the prior litigation, she had been homeless and relying on

friends for support. On October 20, 2014, Layssard filed exceptions of

prescription of five years, res judicata, no right of action, no cause of action, and,

alternatively, vagueness and ambiguity. On December 29, 2014, Layssard filed an

exception of prescription of one year. Following a hearing, the trial court denied

the exceptions of no right of action, no cause of action, and res judicata, sustained

the exceptions of prescription and res judicata by preclusion and found the

exceptions of vagueness and ambiguity moot. Stokes appeals from the judgment

sustaining the exceptions of prescription and preclusion by judgment.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Stokes asserts the trial court erred in:

1. sustaining the exception of prescription of one year;

2. sustaining the exception of res judicata by preclusion; and

3. finding that the cause of action asserted in the instant matter existed at the

time of the first suit and arose out of the same transaction of occurrence as

the first suit.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On appeal, when evidence has been submitted on an exception of

prescription, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s judgment on the exception

for manifest error. Noel v. Noel, 15-37 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/27/15), 165 So.3d 401,

writ denied sub nom. Noel, Jr. v. Noel, Sr., 15-1121 (La. 9/18/15), 178 So.3d 147. 2 Because it is a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s

determination as to “[t]he res judicata effect of a prior judgment” de novo.

Fogleman v. Meaux Surface Prot., Inc., 10-1210, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11), 58

So.3d 1057, 1059, writ denied, 11-712 (La. 5/27/11), 63 So.3d 995 (quoting

Morales v. Parish of Jefferson, 10-273, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 54 So.3d 669, 672).

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

In her first assignment of error, Stokes asserts that prescription on her claim

of revocation for ingratitude, based on Layssard’s refusal to return the subject

property back to Stokes, did not begin running until after Layssard rejected Stokes’

September 6, 2013 return request. In support of this assertion, she argues in brief

that she could not have requested the return of the property while the first suit was

pending because she thought she owned the property because the donation was null,

that the act of ingratitude had not occurred until then, and further, that to conclude

otherwise would require her “to read minds and tell the future.” For the following

reasons, we disagree.

As we explained in Erikson v. Feller, 04-1033, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/8/04),

889 So.2d 430, 432-33 (alteration in original):

A defining element of the inter vivos donation is that it must be made “at present and irrevocably[.]” La.Civ.Code art. 1468. However, the Louisiana Civil Code does allow for the revocation of an inter vivos donation for four express causes, one of which is ingratitude. La.Civ.Code art. 1559.4 Ingratitude is specifically defined in La.Civ.Code art. 1560 to include only three instances: “1. If the donee has attempted to take the life of the donor; 2. If he has been guilty towards him of cruel treatment, crimes or grievous injuries; 3. If he has refused him food, when in distress.”

Although the Civil Code articles pertaining to ingratitude have been

renumbered and the third ground has been removed from La.Civ.Code 1560, the

substance of the law concerning the first two grounds has not changed.

La.Civ.Code art. 1557, comment (a). “An action of revocation for ingratitude shall 3 be brought within one year from the day the donor knew or should have known of

the act of ingratitude.” La.Civ.Code art. 1558. In the instant matter, the petition

alleging ingratitude was filed on October 1, 2014. Therefore, the alleged act of

ingratitude must have occurred on or after October 1, 2013 to be considered timely.

The petition to nullify the donation was filed on June 19, 2012, in which

Stokes alleged that she had been homeless, in necessitous circumstances, and was

relying on friends for support since the donation. Layssard filed an answer to the

petition on August 2, 2012, putting Stokes on notice that she intended to defend the

donation. Clearly, Layssard’s notice of her intent to defend the suit was sufficient

to put Stokes on notice that Layssard had no intention of returning the land to her.

Therefore, we find that Stokes knew or should have known of the alleged

ingratitude, that is, that Layssard would not return the land to her, despite her

purported need, on August 2, 2012. Thus, we find that Stokes’ should have filed

her petition no later than August 2, 2013, and that her claim for ingratitude, on the

grounds that Layssard would not return the property to her despite her need, had

prescribed at the time she filed the instant suit. Therefore, we find that the trial

court did not err in sustaining Layssard’s exception of prescription.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBER TWO AND THREE

Because they address common issues, we address Stokes’ second and third

assignments of error together. In these assignments of error, Stokes asserts that the

trial court erred in sustaining the exception of res judicata by preclusion. In

support of this assignment, she asserts that the cause of action for ingratitude did

not exist at the time she filed her first suit and, further, that the cause of action in

the instant suit did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the prior

suit. For the following reasons, we find these assignments of error to lack merit.

4 Louisiana Civil Code Article 425 provides that “[a] party shall assert all

causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject

matter of the litigation.” Article 425 is read in pari materia with the res judicata

statute, La.R.S. 13:4231. Spires v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 08-573 (La.App.

3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 697, writ denied, 08-2871 (La. 2/6/09), 999 So.2d 783.

Res judicata is an issue and claim preclusion device which prohibits relitigation of matters which were litigated or could have been litigated in a prior suit. Louisiana Revised Statute 13:4231 enumerates the specific circumstances under which a valid and final judgment will preclude a party from raising a claim or issue in a subsequent proceeding.

Walker v. Howell, 04-246, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/15/04), 896 So.2d 110, 112

(emphasis added). Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231 provides, in pertinent part:

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: ....

(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.

Our court has previously explained:

Technically, both claim and issue preclusion are termed res judicata under our law. However, there is a distinction given in Hudson v. City of Bossier[, 33,620, p. 7 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/25/00), 766 So.2d 738, 743, writ denied, 00-2687 (La. 11/27/00), 775 So.2d 450]: Under claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits precludes the parties from relitigating matters that were or could have been raised in that action. . . . Thus, unlike issue preclusion, claim preclusion is much broader, encompassing a prohibition against relitigation of those matters which, not only, were litigated but, also, of those which could have been litigated. “The purpose of both federal and state law on res judicata is essentially the same; to promote judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes by preventing needless re-litigation.”

5 Williams v. City of Marksville, 02-1130, pp. 2-3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/5/03), 839 So.2d

1129, 1131 (footnotes omitted). Importantly, “[f]or res judicata to apply, the cause

or causes of action asserted in the second suit must have existed at the time of final

judgment in the first litigation.” Burguieres v. Pollingue, 02-1385, p. 12 (La.

2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1056.

In the instant matter, there is no dispute that the parties are the same. The

first suit was an action to annul the donation of the property to Layssard on the

grounds that the form of the donation was invalid. In the second suit, Stokes

attempted to revoke the donation on the grounds of ingratitude. Both claims

concern an attempt to have the same property returned to Stokes and arise out of

Layssard’s refusal to return the property at issue to Stokes. Thus, they arise out of

the same transaction or occurrence. Additionally, for the reasons articulated in our

analysis of assignment of error number one, we find that the cause of action to

revoke the donation on the grounds of ingratitude existed and should have been

known by Stokes on August 2, 2012. Final judgment in the first suit was rendered

on October 1, 2013. Thus, we conclude that the cause of action asserted in the

instant matter existed, and should have been brought, at the time final judgment in

the first suit was rendered. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in

sustaining Layssard’s exception of res judicata on the grounds that the claims were

precluded and affirm the judgment of the trial court on this issue.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, we find that the trial court did not err in sustaining

Layssard’s exceptions of prescription and res judicata and affirm the judgment of

6 the trial court in all respects. All costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff,

Belinda Layssard Stokes.

AFFIRMED.