Ruston Berry Woolley v. Robert Woolley

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA | COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

RUSTON BERRY WOOLLEY NO. 2026 CW 0713 VERSUS

ROBERT WOOLLEY AUGUST 25, 2026 In Re: Ruston Berry Woolley, applying for supervisory writs,

Family Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 218,330.

BEFORE : McCLENDON, C.J., HESTER AND MILLER, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. PMc SMM

Hester, J., dissents and would grant the writ. I would reverse the May 12, 2026 district court judgment denying Ruston Woolley’s Exception of No Cause of Action. The stipulated judgment between the parties specified the minor children would remain in Catholic school barring a non-voluntary and significant change in the financial circumstances of a parent. The motion filed by Robert Woolley does not allege such a change. A stipulated judgment is a bilateral contract between the parties, and as such, constitutes the law between them. Adams v. Adams, 39,424 (La. App. 2d Cir. 4/6/05), 899 So.2d 726, 730. The motion filed by Robert Woolley does not contain sufficient allegations pursuant to the stipulated judgment governing school choice to state a cause of action as to a change of schools. Accordingly, I would deny the portion of the motion which seeks a change in schools. I would remand this matter to the district court to allow Robert Woolley an opportunity to amend his motion, if he can, to remove the grounds of the objection. La. Code Civ. P. art. 934.

(CQURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT