Judgment rendered May 20, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 56,860-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
MELANIE CORINNE RITTER, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellants
versus
LINDA BROADWELL KIRBY RITTER Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Richland, Louisiana Trial Court No. 49666-C
Honorable Stephen Gayle Dean, Judge
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY J. BRUSCATO Counsel for Plaintiffs- By: Anthony J. Bruscato Appellants, Melanie Corinne Ritter and Deborah Louise Ritter
BENJAMIN F. MARSHALL, IV & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Defendant- By: Benjamin F. Marshall, IV Appellee
Before PITMAN, HUNTER, AND MARCOTTE, JJ. MARCOTTE, J
This civil appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of
Richland, the Honorable Stephen G. Dean presiding. Plaintiffs, Melanie
Corinne Ritter (“Melanie”) and Deborah Louise Ritter (“Deborah”),
daughters of the decedent, and Thomas Clifton Ritter (“Mr. Ritter”), appeal
the trial court’s judgment granting an exception of no right of action filed by
defendant, Linda Broadwell Kirby Ritter (“Linda”), the surviving spouse of
the decedent. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of a dispute over ownership interests in a 360-
acre tract of land in Richland Parish, Louisiana (the “subject property”).
Mr. Ritter conveyed his interest in the subject property to Linda via
quitclaim deed dated August 9, 2016, and recorded in the Richland Parish
conveyance records on October 2, 2018.
Mr. Ritter died on October 4, 2018, leaving a will in notarial form
dated August 9, 2016, which named Linda as his sole legatee. Specifically,
Mr. Ritter’s will provided that he bequeathed to his wife “all [his] property,
both real and personal, of whatever kind or nature, and wherever situated to
have and to hold in full and complete ownership.”
Melanie and Deborah were not named in his will. A succession was
filed in Ouachita Parish in which Linda was recognized as the sole legatee of
the decedent, and all the decedent’s property, both separate and community,
was conveyed to her by way of a judgment of possession signed January 6,
2019.
On April 26, 2024, Melanie and Deborah filed a petition asserting an
ownership interest in the subject property. The defendant responded by asserting exceptions of vagueness, no cause of action, and prescription. On
February 26, 2025, the trial court granted the exception of vagueness and
permitted plaintiffs 15 days to file an amended petition clarifying their
position.
On March 25, 2025, Melanie and Deborah filed an amended petition
asserting that the quit claim deed was in fact a “donation in disguise” and
ineffective because Linda was not identified and because it was not accepted
during the lifetime of the decedent.
On April 7, 2025, Linda filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of
action, no right of action, and prescription. She claimed that even if the quit
claim deed was not in proper form, the subject property duly passed to her as
the sole, universal legatee of the decedent’s property. She also asserted that
Melanie and Deborah had no interest to institute the suit because they were
not listed as heirs in their late father’s will and have no claim to the subject
property. Linda additionally argued that if Melanie and Deborah are
challenging the decedent’s will, then they are time-barred from doing so
because the will was probated more than five years previously, and they
never intervened in the succession to challenge the will.
On August 25, 2025, the trial court entered a judgment denying
defendants’ exception of no cause of action but granting their exception of
no right of action. The trial court took no action on the exception of
prescription. In granting the exception of no right of action, the trial court
ruled that because the judgment of possession clearly showed that
defendants are not the legal heirs of the decedent and because their interest
in the subject property has been determined to be non-existent, they have no
right of action in the suit. 2 Melanie and Deborah now appeal.
DISCUSSION
Melanie and Deborah argue that the trial court mistakenly granted
Linda’s exception of no right of action. They claim that the judgment of
possession did not transfer any interest in the subject property to Linda. In
support, they note that the judgment of possession states in general terms
that Linda is sent into possession of all assets of Mr. Ritter. They further
note that the document lists and describes specific items of real property,
which are identified as assets of Mr. Ritter, but the subject property is not
listed.
Melanie and Deborah also attack the validity of the quitclaim deed,
asserting that it was not an effective transfer of property. They claim that
while it is in the form of a quitclaim deed, “it is obviously a donation, and it
is equally obvious that it does not contain any acceptance by the donee.”
Because of this alleged “donation in disguise” that was not accepted during
the lifetime of the donor, Melanie and Deborah aver that the donation is a
nullity.
Finally, Melanie and Deborah argue that they are successors by
universal title, and they note that La. C.C. art. 935 says, “Immediately at the
death of the decedent, universal successors acquire ownership of the estate
and particular successors acquire ownership of the things bequeathed to
them.” Melanie and Deborah assert that, as universal successors, they are
permitted to institute all actions that the decedent could have brought;
therefore, they succeeded to their father’s right to nullify the improper
donation. Melanie and Deborah ask this court to reverse the trial court’s
decision granting the exception of no right of action. 3 Linda argues that the trial court was correct in granting her exception
of no right of action. She asserts that even if the quitclaim deed is deemed
as a failed donation, or simply invalid, the subject property would have
remained in the name of Mr. Ritter and, upon his death, would have passed
to Linda as the sole and universal legatee of his property. In support, Linda
points to the Louisiana civilian doctrine of seizin, which mandates that upon
a person’s death, ownership of their estate is immediately transmitted to
universal successors (heirs and legatees) by operation of law. Linda
contends that Melanie and Deborah’s argument that property not listed in a
judgment of possession in a succession falls to the intestate heirs fails in this
context, because here, Mr. Ritter’s will names her as the sole universal
legatee.
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling granting an exception
of no right of action de novo. Badeaux v. Sw. Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-
0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211; Young v. Horseshoe Ent., Ltd. P’ship,
55,749 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/4/24), 399 So. 3d 768, writ denied, 24-01221 (La.
12/27/24), 397 So. 3d 1221. The exception presents a question of law,
requiring a de novo review by appellate courts. La. C.C.P. art. 923; In re
Succession of Harrison, 48,432 (La. App. 2 Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered May 20, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 56,860-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
MELANIE CORINNE RITTER, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellants
versus
LINDA BROADWELL KIRBY RITTER Defendant-Appellee
Appealed from the Fifth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Richland, Louisiana Trial Court No. 49666-C
Honorable Stephen Gayle Dean, Judge
LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY J. BRUSCATO Counsel for Plaintiffs- By: Anthony J. Bruscato Appellants, Melanie Corinne Ritter and Deborah Louise Ritter
BENJAMIN F. MARSHALL, IV & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Defendant- By: Benjamin F. Marshall, IV Appellee
Before PITMAN, HUNTER, AND MARCOTTE, JJ. MARCOTTE, J
This civil appeal arises from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of
Richland, the Honorable Stephen G. Dean presiding. Plaintiffs, Melanie
Corinne Ritter (“Melanie”) and Deborah Louise Ritter (“Deborah”),
daughters of the decedent, and Thomas Clifton Ritter (“Mr. Ritter”), appeal
the trial court’s judgment granting an exception of no right of action filed by
defendant, Linda Broadwell Kirby Ritter (“Linda”), the surviving spouse of
the decedent. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of a dispute over ownership interests in a 360-
acre tract of land in Richland Parish, Louisiana (the “subject property”).
Mr. Ritter conveyed his interest in the subject property to Linda via
quitclaim deed dated August 9, 2016, and recorded in the Richland Parish
conveyance records on October 2, 2018.
Mr. Ritter died on October 4, 2018, leaving a will in notarial form
dated August 9, 2016, which named Linda as his sole legatee. Specifically,
Mr. Ritter’s will provided that he bequeathed to his wife “all [his] property,
both real and personal, of whatever kind or nature, and wherever situated to
have and to hold in full and complete ownership.”
Melanie and Deborah were not named in his will. A succession was
filed in Ouachita Parish in which Linda was recognized as the sole legatee of
the decedent, and all the decedent’s property, both separate and community,
was conveyed to her by way of a judgment of possession signed January 6,
2019.
On April 26, 2024, Melanie and Deborah filed a petition asserting an
ownership interest in the subject property. The defendant responded by asserting exceptions of vagueness, no cause of action, and prescription. On
February 26, 2025, the trial court granted the exception of vagueness and
permitted plaintiffs 15 days to file an amended petition clarifying their
position.
On March 25, 2025, Melanie and Deborah filed an amended petition
asserting that the quit claim deed was in fact a “donation in disguise” and
ineffective because Linda was not identified and because it was not accepted
during the lifetime of the decedent.
On April 7, 2025, Linda filed peremptory exceptions of no cause of
action, no right of action, and prescription. She claimed that even if the quit
claim deed was not in proper form, the subject property duly passed to her as
the sole, universal legatee of the decedent’s property. She also asserted that
Melanie and Deborah had no interest to institute the suit because they were
not listed as heirs in their late father’s will and have no claim to the subject
property. Linda additionally argued that if Melanie and Deborah are
challenging the decedent’s will, then they are time-barred from doing so
because the will was probated more than five years previously, and they
never intervened in the succession to challenge the will.
On August 25, 2025, the trial court entered a judgment denying
defendants’ exception of no cause of action but granting their exception of
no right of action. The trial court took no action on the exception of
prescription. In granting the exception of no right of action, the trial court
ruled that because the judgment of possession clearly showed that
defendants are not the legal heirs of the decedent and because their interest
in the subject property has been determined to be non-existent, they have no
right of action in the suit. 2 Melanie and Deborah now appeal.
DISCUSSION
Melanie and Deborah argue that the trial court mistakenly granted
Linda’s exception of no right of action. They claim that the judgment of
possession did not transfer any interest in the subject property to Linda. In
support, they note that the judgment of possession states in general terms
that Linda is sent into possession of all assets of Mr. Ritter. They further
note that the document lists and describes specific items of real property,
which are identified as assets of Mr. Ritter, but the subject property is not
listed.
Melanie and Deborah also attack the validity of the quitclaim deed,
asserting that it was not an effective transfer of property. They claim that
while it is in the form of a quitclaim deed, “it is obviously a donation, and it
is equally obvious that it does not contain any acceptance by the donee.”
Because of this alleged “donation in disguise” that was not accepted during
the lifetime of the donor, Melanie and Deborah aver that the donation is a
nullity.
Finally, Melanie and Deborah argue that they are successors by
universal title, and they note that La. C.C. art. 935 says, “Immediately at the
death of the decedent, universal successors acquire ownership of the estate
and particular successors acquire ownership of the things bequeathed to
them.” Melanie and Deborah assert that, as universal successors, they are
permitted to institute all actions that the decedent could have brought;
therefore, they succeeded to their father’s right to nullify the improper
donation. Melanie and Deborah ask this court to reverse the trial court’s
decision granting the exception of no right of action. 3 Linda argues that the trial court was correct in granting her exception
of no right of action. She asserts that even if the quitclaim deed is deemed
as a failed donation, or simply invalid, the subject property would have
remained in the name of Mr. Ritter and, upon his death, would have passed
to Linda as the sole and universal legatee of his property. In support, Linda
points to the Louisiana civilian doctrine of seizin, which mandates that upon
a person’s death, ownership of their estate is immediately transmitted to
universal successors (heirs and legatees) by operation of law. Linda
contends that Melanie and Deborah’s argument that property not listed in a
judgment of possession in a succession falls to the intestate heirs fails in this
context, because here, Mr. Ritter’s will names her as the sole universal
legatee.
An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling granting an exception
of no right of action de novo. Badeaux v. Sw. Computer Bureau, Inc., 05-
0612 (La. 3/17/06), 929 So. 2d 1211; Young v. Horseshoe Ent., Ltd. P’ship,
55,749 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/4/24), 399 So. 3d 768, writ denied, 24-01221 (La.
12/27/24), 397 So. 3d 1221. The exception presents a question of law,
requiring a de novo review by appellate courts. La. C.C.P. art. 923; In re
Succession of Harrison, 48,432 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/8/13), 129 So. 3d 681,
writ denied, 14-0273 (La. 4/4/14), 135 So. 3d 1185. The burden of proof of
establishing the exception of no right of action is on the exceptor. La.
C.C.P. art. 923; Harrison, supra.
Only a person having a real and actual interest to assert may bring an
action. See La. C.C.P. art. 681 (“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, an
action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest
which he asserts”). A peremptory exception of no right of action is used to 4 show that a plaintiff has no legal right or interest in enforcing the matter
asserted, based upon facts and evidence submitted. La. C.C.P. arts. 681 and
927; Campbell v. Nexion Health at Claiborne, Inc., 49,150, (La. App. 2 Cir.
10/1/14), 149 So. 3d 436.
The exception of no right of action assumes that the petition states a
valid cause of action and questions whether the plaintiff in the particular
case has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Louisiana
Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm’n, 94-2015 (La.
11/30/94), 646 So. 2d 885. An exception of no right of action is a
peremptory exception, the function of which is “to have the plaintiff’s action
declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence this
exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.” La. C.C.P. art. 923;
Succession of Mabray, 56,102 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So. 3d 1071,
1074.
There are two kinds of succession: testate and intestate. La. C.C. art.
873. Testate succession results from the will of the deceased, contained in a
testament executed in a form prescribed by law. La. C.C. art. 874. Intestate
succession results from provisions of law in favor of certain persons, in
default of testate successors. La. C.C. art. 875. Intestate successors are also
called heirs, and testate successors are also called legatees. La. C.C. art.
876.
With respect to testate succession, testamentary dispositions are
particular, general, or universal. La. C.C. art. 1584. A universal legacy is a
disposition of all of the estate, or the balance of the estate that remains after
particular legacies. La. C.C. art. 1585.
5 The legacy to Linda is a universal legacy in that it disposes of all of
Mr. Ritter’s estate. Because Linda is named as a universal legatee, the
disposition of Mr. Ritter’s property follows the terms of his will, and it
transfers to her. Linda, with full benefits of seizin, inherited all of Mr.
Ritter’s property by operation of law. Melanie and Deborah were not listed
in the will and inherited nothing.
The theory advanced by Melanie and Deborah contends that property
not listed in a judgment of possession falls to them as Mr. Ritter’s intestate
heirs. However, this happens only in the case where no universal legatee is
named, which is indisputably not the case here. Therefore, whether the
quitclaim deed is a “donation in disguise” is ultimately beside the point
because Linda inherited all of Mr. Ritter’s property through his will by
operation of law.
In other words, the fact that the judgment of possession does not
include the subject property ultimately has no bearing on whether Melanie
and Deborah have a right of action to bring a suit asserting an ownership
interest in property, the entirety of which was validly transferred to Linda
through Mr. Ritter’s will. Moreover, in accordance with La. C.C.P. art.
3393, a succession proceeding can be reopened or amended at any time if
other property of the succession is discovered. As such, a simple
amendment to the judgment of possession would cure any deficiencies as to
the form of the quitclaim deed.
Because Melanie and Deborah are not listed as heirs in their late
father’s will, they have no interest in or claim to the subject property and
thus have no right of action to bring suit against Linda asserting any
6 ownership in the subject property. Accordingly, the trial court correctly
granted Linda’s exception of no right of action.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. The
costs of the appeal are assessed to appellants.
AFFIRMED.