STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CA 24-194
HILLARY NOEL-POTIER
VERSUS
RICHARD POTIER
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 91132 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT CHIEF JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
John W. Milton King Milton Law Group, L.L.C. 213 East Willow Street Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 548-3030 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hillary Noel-Potier
Lucretia P. Pecantte Lucretia Pecantte & Associates 124 W. Washington Street, Suite B New Iberia, LA 70562 (337) 374-1202 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Richard Potier PICKETT, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant’s
motion to deem his sworn detailed descriptive list as a judicial determination of the
community of assets and liabilities existing between them during their marriage.
We affirm.
FACTS
On December 20, 2021, Richard Potier filed a petition seeking a divorce
from Hillary Noel-Potier. With regard to incidental matters, Mr. Potier requested
“both parties be ordered to file a sworn detailed descriptive list[] with forty-five
days of the service[] of this petition setting forth al [sic] community assets and
liabilities and all reimbursement claims.” The trial court signed an order on
December 28, 2021, which provides, in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that HILLARY NOEL-POTIER show cause on the 9th day of February, 2022 at 10:30 A.m. . . . why the court should not set a date for the filing of the sworn detailed descriptive lists of the community of property.
Mr. Potier filed his detailed descriptive list (hereinafter “DDL”) on July 5,
2022. Thereafter, on November 28, 2022, he filed a rule to show cause why his
DDL should not be deemed a judicial determination of the community of assets
and liabilities existing between him and Ms. Noel-Potier. According to the record,
Ms. Noel-Potier had not filed her own DDL before the May 24, 2023 hearing on
Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause. During that hearing, counsel for Ms. Noel-Potier
argued (1) he had not been served with an order setting the deadline for filing the
DDL and (2) Ms. Noel-Potier’s DDL had been filed before Mr. Potier filed his rule
to show cause why his DDL should not be deemed to constitute the community
between the parties. Ms. Noel-Potier also argued Mr. Potier’s DDL should not be
“deemed to constitute a judicial determination of the community assets and liabilities[,]” as provided by La.R.S. 9:2801(A)(1)(a), because: a) there was a
miscommunication between the parties regarding the separation of community
property; b) Ms. Noel-Potier relied on recommendations made by the Hearing
Officer; c) Mr. Potier’s DDL is totally incomplete; d) some assets not listed on Mr.
Potier’s DDL are listed in another judgment as being community property; and e)
the parties stipulated that certain items not included on Mr. Potier’s DDL were
community property; therefore, those items should be deemed community
property.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court allowed the parties time to
file additional briefs supporting their positions. Thereafter, the court issued
Reasons for Judgment finding Ms. Noel-Potier did not establish she had good
cause for failing to timely file her DDL and issued a judgment on August 4, 2023,
granting Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause and deeming his DDL as the community
of assets and liabilities existing between the parties. Ms. Noel Potier filed this
appeal.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Noel-Potier assigns one error on appeal: the trial court erred in holding
the parties had been ordered to file their DDLs within forty-five days. In paragraph
10 of his Petition for Divorce, Mr. Potier requested both parties be ordered to file
their DDLs within forty-five days of service of notice. In support of her position,
Ms. Noel-Potier points to the specific language of the December 28, 2020 order
signed by the trial court that addresses the deadline for the parties to file their
DDLs, which states: “why the court should not set a date for the filing of the sworn
detailed descriptive lists of the community of property.” She is correct that she was
not ordered to file her DDL within forty-five days of a specific date, but she fails to
acknowledge La.R.S. 9:2801 which establishes a deadline for parties to file their 2 DDLs. Mr. Potier filed his DDL on July 5, 2022, and his rule to have his DDL
deemed to constitute the assets and liabilities of the community on November 28,
2022.
In ruling on Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause, the trial court referenced the
procedure for spouses to partition community property and settle other claims
arising from the termination of their matrimonial regime set forth in La.R.S.
9:2801. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801(A)(1)(a) which governs the procedure
for the filing of the parties’ DDLs and provides, in pertinent part: “Within forty-
five days of service of a motion by either party, each party shall file a sworn
detailed descriptive list of all community property[.]” If one party fails to file her
DDL timely, the other party can file a rule to show cause why his DDL “should not
be deemed to constitute a judicial determination of the community assets and
liabilities.” Id. At the hearing on that rule, the trial court “may either grant the
request or, for good cause shown, extend the time period for filing a sworn detailed
descriptive list.” Id. If the trial court grants the request, the DDL is deemed to
constitute the community of assets and liabilities and cannot be traversed. Id.
The trial court pointed out in its Reasons for Judgment that Ms. Noel-Potier
had been served with Mr. Potier’s petition for divorce why the parties should not
be ordered to file their DDLswithin forty-five days of service on January 6, 2022.
Ms. Noel-Potier did not deny being served with Mr. Potier’s petition for divorce.
Rather, she denied being ordered to file her DDL within forty-five days of a certain
date which is correct. Nonetheless, the trial court noted La.R.S. 9:2801(A)(1)(a)
establishes a forty-five-day statutory deadline for parties to file their DDLs.
Neither party met that deadline.
The transcript of the May 24, 2023 hearing on Mr. Potier’s motion to have
his DDL deemed to constitute the community between the parties shows Ms. Noel- 3 Potier’s DDL was not in the record due to insufficient filing fees. Ms. Noel-Potier
submitted her DDL on November 30, 2022, two days after Mr. Potier filed his rule
to show cause. She argued she filed her DDL earlier, but the signature page of the
DDL is dated November 29, 2022. The outstanding fees were not paid until June
27, 2023, seven months after she submitted her DDL to the clerk of court’s office
and almost one year after Mr. Potier filed his DDL.
In Gauthier v. Gauthier, 04-198, pp. 3–4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 886
So.2d 681, 684–85, this court addressed the issue of good cause in relation to the
filing of DDLs, stating:
Although there is no jurisprudential guidance on the meaning of good cause in relation to La.R.S. 9:2801, several courts have discussed the role of good cause in deciding whether or not to extend time in other contexts.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
CA 24-194
HILLARY NOEL-POTIER
VERSUS
RICHARD POTIER
**********
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 91132 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT CHIEF JUDGE
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Guy E. Bradberry, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
John W. Milton King Milton Law Group, L.L.C. 213 East Willow Street Lafayette, LA 70501 (337) 548-3030 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hillary Noel-Potier
Lucretia P. Pecantte Lucretia Pecantte & Associates 124 W. Washington Street, Suite B New Iberia, LA 70562 (337) 374-1202 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Richard Potier PICKETT, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant’s
motion to deem his sworn detailed descriptive list as a judicial determination of the
community of assets and liabilities existing between them during their marriage.
We affirm.
FACTS
On December 20, 2021, Richard Potier filed a petition seeking a divorce
from Hillary Noel-Potier. With regard to incidental matters, Mr. Potier requested
“both parties be ordered to file a sworn detailed descriptive list[] with forty-five
days of the service[] of this petition setting forth al [sic] community assets and
liabilities and all reimbursement claims.” The trial court signed an order on
December 28, 2021, which provides, in pertinent part:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that HILLARY NOEL-POTIER show cause on the 9th day of February, 2022 at 10:30 A.m. . . . why the court should not set a date for the filing of the sworn detailed descriptive lists of the community of property.
Mr. Potier filed his detailed descriptive list (hereinafter “DDL”) on July 5,
2022. Thereafter, on November 28, 2022, he filed a rule to show cause why his
DDL should not be deemed a judicial determination of the community of assets
and liabilities existing between him and Ms. Noel-Potier. According to the record,
Ms. Noel-Potier had not filed her own DDL before the May 24, 2023 hearing on
Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause. During that hearing, counsel for Ms. Noel-Potier
argued (1) he had not been served with an order setting the deadline for filing the
DDL and (2) Ms. Noel-Potier’s DDL had been filed before Mr. Potier filed his rule
to show cause why his DDL should not be deemed to constitute the community
between the parties. Ms. Noel-Potier also argued Mr. Potier’s DDL should not be
“deemed to constitute a judicial determination of the community assets and liabilities[,]” as provided by La.R.S. 9:2801(A)(1)(a), because: a) there was a
miscommunication between the parties regarding the separation of community
property; b) Ms. Noel-Potier relied on recommendations made by the Hearing
Officer; c) Mr. Potier’s DDL is totally incomplete; d) some assets not listed on Mr.
Potier’s DDL are listed in another judgment as being community property; and e)
the parties stipulated that certain items not included on Mr. Potier’s DDL were
community property; therefore, those items should be deemed community
property.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court allowed the parties time to
file additional briefs supporting their positions. Thereafter, the court issued
Reasons for Judgment finding Ms. Noel-Potier did not establish she had good
cause for failing to timely file her DDL and issued a judgment on August 4, 2023,
granting Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause and deeming his DDL as the community
of assets and liabilities existing between the parties. Ms. Noel Potier filed this
appeal.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Noel-Potier assigns one error on appeal: the trial court erred in holding
the parties had been ordered to file their DDLs within forty-five days. In paragraph
10 of his Petition for Divorce, Mr. Potier requested both parties be ordered to file
their DDLs within forty-five days of service of notice. In support of her position,
Ms. Noel-Potier points to the specific language of the December 28, 2020 order
signed by the trial court that addresses the deadline for the parties to file their
DDLs, which states: “why the court should not set a date for the filing of the sworn
detailed descriptive lists of the community of property.” She is correct that she was
not ordered to file her DDL within forty-five days of a specific date, but she fails to
acknowledge La.R.S. 9:2801 which establishes a deadline for parties to file their 2 DDLs. Mr. Potier filed his DDL on July 5, 2022, and his rule to have his DDL
deemed to constitute the assets and liabilities of the community on November 28,
2022.
In ruling on Mr. Potier’s rule to show cause, the trial court referenced the
procedure for spouses to partition community property and settle other claims
arising from the termination of their matrimonial regime set forth in La.R.S.
9:2801. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801(A)(1)(a) which governs the procedure
for the filing of the parties’ DDLs and provides, in pertinent part: “Within forty-
five days of service of a motion by either party, each party shall file a sworn
detailed descriptive list of all community property[.]” If one party fails to file her
DDL timely, the other party can file a rule to show cause why his DDL “should not
be deemed to constitute a judicial determination of the community assets and
liabilities.” Id. At the hearing on that rule, the trial court “may either grant the
request or, for good cause shown, extend the time period for filing a sworn detailed
descriptive list.” Id. If the trial court grants the request, the DDL is deemed to
constitute the community of assets and liabilities and cannot be traversed. Id.
The trial court pointed out in its Reasons for Judgment that Ms. Noel-Potier
had been served with Mr. Potier’s petition for divorce why the parties should not
be ordered to file their DDLswithin forty-five days of service on January 6, 2022.
Ms. Noel-Potier did not deny being served with Mr. Potier’s petition for divorce.
Rather, she denied being ordered to file her DDL within forty-five days of a certain
date which is correct. Nonetheless, the trial court noted La.R.S. 9:2801(A)(1)(a)
establishes a forty-five-day statutory deadline for parties to file their DDLs.
Neither party met that deadline.
The transcript of the May 24, 2023 hearing on Mr. Potier’s motion to have
his DDL deemed to constitute the community between the parties shows Ms. Noel- 3 Potier’s DDL was not in the record due to insufficient filing fees. Ms. Noel-Potier
submitted her DDL on November 30, 2022, two days after Mr. Potier filed his rule
to show cause. She argued she filed her DDL earlier, but the signature page of the
DDL is dated November 29, 2022. The outstanding fees were not paid until June
27, 2023, seven months after she submitted her DDL to the clerk of court’s office
and almost one year after Mr. Potier filed his DDL.
In Gauthier v. Gauthier, 04-198, pp. 3–4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 886
So.2d 681, 684–85, this court addressed the issue of good cause in relation to the
filing of DDLs, stating:
Although there is no jurisprudential guidance on the meaning of good cause in relation to La.R.S. 9:2801, several courts have discussed the role of good cause in deciding whether or not to extend time in other contexts. Courts have agreed that “‘good cause’ must constitute, if not a compelling reason, certainly a reason of such significance and gravity that it would be inequitable to deny an extension.” Roan v. Roan, 38,383, pp. 21–22 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/14/04), 870 So.2d 626, 639, quoting Piccione v. Piccione, 01-1086, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/22/02), 824 So.2d 427, 432.
Courts have consistently declined to grant exceptions for good cause in situations where attorneys have missed a statutory deadline through inadvertence or error. In Lewis v. Spence, 00–648, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/00), 772 So.2d 354, 355, a party’s counsel admitted that through “inadvertence and mistake or excusable neglect, the [deadline] was not calendared.” The court determined that no good cause existed to excuse plaintiff’s failure to request timely service of process on a defendant. In a similar circumstance, the court concluded that “[p]laintiff counsel’s request of service one day after the ninety- day period expired strongly suggests she either miscalculated or miscalendared the deadline. Such inadvertence does not constitute good cause.” Young v. Roth, 01–2151, p. 1 (La.11/9/01), 800 So.2d 374, 374–75. In Norbert v. Loucks, 01–1229 (La.6/29/01), 791 So.2d 1283, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff failed to serve them within the statutory period. The plaintiff responded by invoking the good cause exception of the statute, explaining that his prior attorney did not know the defendant’s whereabouts. The court held that “inadvertence in requesting service on the part of the plaintiff’s counsel is not a sufficient basis for good cause.” Id. at 1285.
4 See also, Girouard v. Girouard, 21-758 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/27/22) (unpublished
opinion), 2022 WL 1233946. Good cause is a factual determination which should
not be disturbed absent manifest error. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989).
Ms. Noel-Potier was not ordered to file her DDL within forty-five days of
being served with Mr. Potier’s original rule to show cause, but La.R.S.
9:2801(A)(1)(a) provides a forty-five-day statutory deadline to file a DDL. Ms.
Noel-Potier never sought clarification of the deadline, even after Mr. Potier filed
his DDL in July 2022. Furthermore, she did not ensure her untimely DDL would
be filed when she submitted it to the clerk of court, did not pay the necessary fees
required to file it after being notified by the clerk of court, and did not verify it had
been filed before the May 2023 hearing on Mr. Potier’s rule to have his DDL
deemed to constitute the community assets and liabilities. Under these facts, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ms. Noel-Potier’s request to
consider her late filed DDL.
DISPOSITION
For the reasons discussed herein, the trial court’s judgment deeming Richard
Potier’s detailed descriptive list as constituting the community of assets and
liabilities formerly existing between the parties is affirmed.