Eugene J. Sonnier, II. v. the Congregation of St, Genevieve Roman Catholic Church

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 29, 2023
• Docket: CA-0023-0167
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

23-167

EUGENE J. SONNIER, II

VERSUS

THE CONGREGATION OF ST. GENEVIEVE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH D/B/A CALVARY CEMETERY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20214828, Div. E HONORABLE MICHELLE M. BREAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

SHARON DARVILLE WILSON JUDGE

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Van H. Kyzar, and Sharon Darville Wilson, Judges.

AFFIRMED. G. Karl Bernard KARL BERNARD LAW, LLC 1615 Poydras Street, Suite 101 New Orleans Louisana 70112 (504) 412-9953 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Eugene J. Sonnier, II

Troy Allen Broussard ALLEN & GOOCH, A Law Corporation Post Office Box 81129 Lafayette, Louisiana 70598-1129 (337) 291-1370 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: The Congregation of St. Genevieve Roman Catholic Church d/b/a Calvary Cemetery WILSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, Eugene J. Sonnier, II (Mr. Sonnier), filed suit for breach of contract

and detrimental reliance after Defendant, St. Genevieve Roman Catholic Church

d/b/a Calvary Cemetery (Calvary Cemetery), re-titled the plot where his son is

buried to reflect joint ownership between Mr. Sonnier and his ex-wife, Norlet Pierre

(Mrs. Pierre), and sold two adjacent plots to Mrs. Pierre and her husband. Mr.

Sonnier appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit, with prejudice, by the granting of

Calvary Cemetery’s exception of res judicata.

I.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court erred in failing to find that the

circumstances of this case justify the imposition of the exceptions to the general rule

of res judicata found in La.R.S. 13:4232.

II.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The facts of this case are well known to this court since this is not the first

time they have been heard by us. Mr. Sonnier’s and Mrs. Pierre’s son, Eugene

Sonnier, III (Trey), died in a motorcycle accident on October 27, 2013, while on

active duty as an Airman First Class in the United States Air Force. He was stationed

at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey at the time of his death. Prior to his death,

Trey executed Department of Defense Form 93 designating Mr. Sonnier as the

person authorized to direct the disposition of his remains (PADD) should he die

while in military service.

After being notified of his son’s death and of his appointment as his son’s

PADD, Mr. Sonnier, who is a mortician, elected to have his son’s body prepared by

a mortuary in New Jersey and then flown back to Lafayette, Louisiana. Mr. Sonnier’s long-time employer, Syrie Funeral Home, handled the arrangements for

Trey’s funeral services. Meanwhile, Mr. Sonnier met with Paul Dunand, director of

Calvary Cemetery. Mr. Sonnier chose one plot to be Trey’s final resting place and

expressed his intention to purchase two adjacent plots so that the three plots could

be used to construct a family tomb wherein Trey would be interred in the middle

plot, and Mr. Sonnier and his daughter would be buried in the other plots. The plots

were numbered 20, 21, and 22. Mr. Sonnier contends that Calvary Cemetery had a

longstanding and well-known custom of reserving adjacent plots for family

members.

Mr. Sonnier finalized the arrangements for the immediate acquisition of Plot

21, and Trey’s funeral service was held on November 4, 2013. Mr. Sonnier alleges

that he contacted Mr. Dunand to finalize the purchase of Plots 20 and 22 on or about

November 21, 2013, but Mr. Dunand informed him that the plots had been sold to

Mrs. Pierre and her husband. Mr. Sonnier further alleges that in December of 2013,

Calvary Cemetery, at the request of Mrs. Pierre, re-titled Plot 21 to reflect joint

ownership between Mr. Sonnier and Mrs. Pierre even though Mrs. Pierre had not

made any financial contribution toward the purchase of Plot 21.

These operative facts form the basis of several lawsuits, including the instant

suit, filed by Mr. Sonnier. The first suit, naming the Catholic Foundation of the

Diocese of Lafayette (the Diocese) and Mrs. Pierre as defendants, was filed in the

Fifteenth Judicial District Court under docket number C-2014-6291-E on December

16, 2014. In that Petition for Recognition of Ownership and for Injunctive Relief,

Mr. Sonnier sought sole ownership of Plot 21. The Diocese filed an exception of no

cause of action, alleging that it did not own Calvary Cemetery. Mr. Sonnier amended

his petition to name St. Genevieve Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of

Lafayette (St. Genevieve) as a defendant. Mrs. Pierre filed an exception of

2 vagueness and ambiguity of the petition. Thereafter, Mr. Sonnier filed a second

amended petition, and, in response, the Diocese, St. Genevieve, and Mrs. Pierre filed

exceptions of no cause of action, which were granted by the trial court in a judgment

that dismissed all of Mr. Sonnier’s claims against all defendants. This court affirmed

the trial court’s judgment. Sonnier v. Catholic Foundation of the Diocese of

Lafayette, 15-1051 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/16), 215 So.3d 804, writ denied in part, 16-

839 (La. 10/28/16), 202 So.3d 992. Mr. Sonnier sought writs from the Louisiana

Supreme Court, which granted writs in part and amended the judgment of the court

of appeal “for the sole purpose of providing that the case shall be remanded to the

district court to give relator an opportunity to amend his petition to state a cause of

action for re-interment pursuant to La.R.S. 8:659.” Sonnier v. Catholic Foundation

of the Diocese of Lafayette, 16-839, p. 3 (La. 10/28/16), 202 So.3d 992, 993-94. The

supreme court affirmed the finding that Mr. Sonnier “failed to state a cause of action

for recognition of ownership, injunctive relief or damages.” Id. at 992.

After remand, the Louisiana Cemetery Board intervened. Mr. Sonnier

voluntarily dismissed his claims against Mrs. Pierre and the cemetery and then,

under the same docket number, C-2014-6291-E, filed a petition for declaratory

judgment, naming St. Genevieve, Mrs. Pierre, and the Louisiana Cemetery Board as

defendants. Mr. Sonnier sought a declaratory judgment ordering defendants to allow

the disinterment of Trey’s remains so that he could move Trey to another location

that would be suitable for his original plan for a family tomb. The trial court denied

Mr. Sonnier’s request, and Mr. Sonnier appealed. A divided panel of this court

affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition for declaratory judgment based on a

finding that La.R.S. 8:659 controls reinterment and that, based on the record, Mr.

Sonnier was not entitled to disinterment of Trey’s remains. Sonnier v. Catholic

Foundation of the Diocese of Lafayette, 18-289 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/19/18), 261 So.3d

3 965, writ denied, 19-128 (La. 4/8/19), 267 So.3d 61, cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 524

(2019). The Louisiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court denied

writs. Id.

The second suit was filed on November 9, 2015, in the Fifteenth Judicial

District Court under docket number C-2015-5619-K. Calvary Cemetery was the

named defendant, and the petition was titled “Petition for Permission to Remove

Remains.” The suit was dismissed with prejudice by an October 3, 2016 judgment,

which granted Calvary Cemetery’s exception of res judicata. No appeal was taken.

On September 6, 2016, Mr. Sonnier filed suit against the Diocese of Lafayette,

Bishop Michael Jerrell, and Father Brian Taylor (the pastor of St. Genevieve). This

suit was filed in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court under docket number C-2016-

4584-E and in federal court. Mr. Sonnier alleged that Father Taylor revealed Mr.

Sonnier’s confessions to other individuals by expressing concerns that Mr. Sonnier

was using the confessional to have communications involving the litigation

concerning Trey’s burial. Those suits were dismissed in February of 2017 for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

A fourth suit was filed in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court under docket

number C-2017-3503-B on June 14, 2017. This Petition for Declaratory Judgment

named the Diocese as defendant. Mr. Sonnier sought a judgment recognizing that

he was authorized to direct the disposition of Trey’s remains and disinter and reinter

Trey at a cemetery of Mr. Sonnier’s choosing. The third suit was voluntarily

dismissed without prejudice on September 6, 2017.

On September 17, 2021, Mr. Sonnier filed the instant Petition for Damages

and Declaratory Judgment in the Fifteenth Judicial District Court under docket

number C-2021-4828-E. Calvary Cemetery was named as defendant. Mr. Sonnier

sought damages for breach of contract and detrimental reliance. Calvary Cemetery

4 filed a peremptory exception of res judicata, which was granted by the trial court.

On November 29, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment granting the exception of

res judicata and dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. The judgment also denied

Mr. Sonnier’s request for leave to amend the lawsuit. This appeal followed.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The standard of review of a judgment sustaining res judicata is a mixed

standard, consisting of both manifest error and de novo review. In other words, all

factual findings are reviewed under the manifest error standard, and all questions of

law are reviewed de novo.” Bethel v. Simon, 22-198, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir.

6/22/22), 344 So.3d 226, 229-30 (citations omitted). “[T]he res judicata effect of a

prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.” Jefferson Marine

Towing, Inc. v. Kostmayer Constr., LLC, 09-310, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/26/10), 32

So.3d 255, 259, writ denied, 10-378 (La. 4/23/10), 34 So.3d 265.

IV.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

“Res Judicata is designed to ‘promote judicial efficiency and final resolution

of disputes,’ and generally precludes the re-litigation of claims arising out of the

same facts and circumstances between the same parties of a previous suit in which

there is a valid, final judgment.” Sutton v. Adams, 22-1672, 22-1674, 22-1677, p. 3

(La. 3/7/23), 356 So.3d 1038, 1042, quoting Avenue Plaza, LLC v. Falgoust, 96-173,

p. 4 (La. 7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1077, 1079. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4231

provides, in pertinent part, that:

a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:

....

5 (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.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 425(A) states that “[a] party shall

assert all causes of action arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the

subject matter of the litigation.”

“The burden of proving the facts essential to support the objection of res

judicata is on the party pleading the objection.” Pirosko v. Pirosko, 22-1000, p. 9

(La.App. 1 Cir. 2/24/23), 361 So.3d 1011, 1018.

Mr. Sonnier “concedes that the judgment in the first lawsuit, 15th JDC,

Docket No. 2014-6291, involved the same parties as the matter at hand and is final

and valid.” Mr. Sonnier “also concedes that both suits arise out of the same

transaction and occurrence[.]” Mr. Sonnier’s counsel stated, “it’s no doubt that this

case appears to be a textbook example of why the principles of res judicata exist, to

prevent the re-litigation of cases[.]” However, Mr. Sonnier urges that his case

warrants an exception to the rule. Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4232 provides, in

pertinent part, that “[a] judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff: (1)

When exceptional circumstances justify relief from the res judicata effect of the

judgment[.]” Exceptional circumstances have been defined as “complex procedural

situations in which litigants are deprived of the opportunity to present their claims

due to unanticipated quirks in the system, to factual situations that could not be

anticipated by the parties, or to decisions that are totally beyond the control of the

parties.” Kevin Assoc., LLC v. Crawford, 04-2227, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/4/05),

917 So.2d 544, 549, writ denied, 06-220 (La. 5/5/06), 927 So.2d 311. Specifically,

6 Mr. Sonnier argues that “a cursory read of the lawsuits filed and the resulting

adjudication, coupled with the dissenting and concurring opinions published by

member of appellate courts involved, illustrate the complexity of and convoluted

circumstances in this matter.” Mr. Sonnier also asserts that the prior litigation

“presented a unique question” regarding the PADD’s authority pursuant to Title 10

U.S.C. § 1482, and whether Louisiana law is preempted by federal law. Mr. Sonnier

argues that exceptional circumstances exist because there is conflict between federal

and state law in that Louisiana law, in La.R.S. 8:659, imposes additional burdens

and requirements on a PADD that are not present in 10 U.S.C. §1482. Mr. Sonnier

further contends that all of the procedural flaws that resulted in the dismissal of his

previous lawsuits have been corrected in the instant suit and that the merits of his

claim have never been adjudicated.

Mr. Sonnier was given the opportunity to present additional briefing on the

issue of whether 10 U.S.C § 1482 granted a PADD the authority to exhume and

relocate a service member’s remains.1 Mr. Sonnier could point to no cases that

allowed this. Calvary Cemetery points out that the instant suit is not an action to

move Trey’s remains but is an action for damages predicated on breach of contract

and detrimental reliance such that La.R.S. 8:659 and 10 U.S.C. § 1482 are

inapplicable and such that any alleged conflict between the two is irrelevant.

Calvary Cemetery argues that no exceptional circumstances are present in this

case and that Mr. Sonnier is merely complaining that the complex substantive legal

issues were wrongly decided by the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, the Third

Circuit Court of Appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court, and the United States

1 Mr. Sonnier and Calvary Cemetery both filed additional briefs following oral argument. Mr. Sonnier filed a reply to Calvary Cemetery’s post-argument brief, and Calvary Cemetery filed a motion to strike that reply. We hereby deny that motion to strike. We have read and considered all of the post-argument briefs. 7 Supreme Court. Calvary Cemetery asserts that “this is not a situation in which

Sonnier filed prior lawsuits and, due to some profound procedural complexity or

legal complication, inadvertently failed to assert a claim against this same defendant

that should have been brought at that time.” According to Calvary Cemetery, Mr.

Sonnier is asserting the same claims that he asserted in the prior litigation even

though those claims were dismissed with prejudice via final judgment.

In discussing the trial court’s discretion in granting relief from the res judicata

effect of a judgment due to the existence of exceptional circumstances, the

comments to La.R.S. 13:4232 state that discretion “is necessary to allow the court to

balance the principle of res judicata with the interests of justice” and “must be

exercised on a case by case basis and such relief should be granted only in truly

exceptional cases, otherwise the purpose of res judicata would be defeated.”

We may agree with Mr. Sonnier that this case presented a unique and complex

issue; however, Mr. Sonnier has not shown that he was deprived of the opportunity

to present his claims or the existence of any other exceptional circumstance. Mr.

Sonnier asserts that there is no claim in the instant lawsuit to move Trey’s remains,

but he states that allowing him “to move his son’s remains to another cemetery space

within the same cemetery would be a satisfactory legal remedy to [his] breach of

contract and detrimental reliance claims.” So, it is important to recognize that

“[p]rior litigation of an issue is not required in order for a cause of action to be barred

by res judicata.” Henkelmann v. Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC, 13-180, p. 6

(La.App. 1 Cir. 5/15/14), 145 So.3d 465, 470.

After a final judgment, res judicata bars relitigation of any subject matter arising from the same transaction or occurrence as a previous suit. See La.R.S. 13:4231; La. C.C.P. art. 425. Implicit in the concept of res judicata is the principle that a party had the opportunity to raise a claim in the first adjudication[] but failed to do so.

Id. (emphasis in original).

8 In the alternative, Mr. Sonnier argues that he should be allowed leave to

amend this petition to “re-urge” the claims set forth in docket number C-2017-3503-

B, his suit against the Catholic Foundation of the Diocese of Lafayette that was

voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Calvary Cemetery argues that the defect

(i.e., res judicata) cannot be cured such that allowing Mr. Sonnier an opportunity to

amend his petition would be futile since allowing Mr. Sonnier to assert the same

allegations would create “yet another situation” for the application of res judicata.

We agree.

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court correctly sustained the

exception of res judicata and correctly denied Mr. Sonnier’s request to amend the

petition. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed in its entirety. Costs of this appeal

are assessed to Plaintiff/Appellant, Eugene J. Sonnier, II.

AFFIRMED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.