Opinion
NUMBER 2016 CA 1544
07-11-2017
TREE OF LIFE BAPTIST CHURCH OF LEGONIER, LA v. LESLIE DRAPER, III & TREE OF CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.
Dele A. Adebamiji Felicia E. Adebamiji Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellant Plaintiff - Tree of Life Baptist Church of Legonier, LA Derrick M. Whittington Marksville, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee Defendant - Leslie Draper, III, et al.
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appealed from the 18th Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Pointe Coupee, Louisiana
Trial Court Number 46851 Honorable Alvin Batiste, Jr., Judge Dele A. Adebamiji
Felicia E. Adebamiji
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellant
Plaintiff - Tree of Life Baptist
Church of Legonier, LA Derrick M. Whittington
Marksville, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee
Defendant - Leslie Draper, III, et al. BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ. WELCH, J.
The plaintiff/appellant, Tree of Life Baptist Church of Legonier, LA ("Tree of Life"), appeals a judgment sustaining a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata filed by defendants/appellees, Leslie Draper, III and Tree of Calvary Baptist Church, Inc., resulting in the dismissal of Tree of Life's suit. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand this matter for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The instant matter arises out of a dispute over the control of a church and its immovable property. Over the course of this dispute two suits have been filed - one in the 12th Judicial District Court ("12th JDC") and another in the 18th Judicial District Court ("18th JDC"). As the issue herein is whether the second action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, we begin by setting forth the procedural history of both suits below.
12th Judicial District Court
In August of 2014, suit was filed in the 12th JDC on behalf of the Tree of Life. Tree of Life was represented therein by Ms. Lisa Romar, Ms. Geraldine Callihan, and Ms. Delores Lanehart, who alleged to appear in their capacity as members of the board of directors. The petition alleged that Tree of Life, a non-profit religious corporation, was formed in 1954 and operated for a number of years from property located in Point Coupee Parish. In 2002, the congregation of Tree of Life sought to join with the congregation of the New Mount Calvary Baptist Church. To that end, a new corporation called Tree of Calvary Baptist Church, Inc. ("Tree of Calvary") was formed, and the joined congregations began holding services at a new location in Simmesport, Louisiana.
At some point in 2002, a meeting was held to formalize the merger of Tree of Life into Tree of Calvary; however, Tree of Life's petition averred that the meeting was invalidly noticed, thus, invalidating the alleged merger and associated transfer of Tree of Life's immovable property into the new entity.
In 2014, an unidentified number of members decided to leave the congregation in Simmesport and revive operations at the previously vacated Tree of Life property. As part of the efforts to re-start Tree of Life, a meeting was held on August 7, 2014, to elect new directors. The petition alleged that it was believed that there was no known list of members of Tree of Life; therefore, notice for the meeting was provided under La. R.S. 12:230(C), which addresses meeting notice in the event of the accidental destruction, accidental loss of corporate records, or other similar exigency. Pursuant to La. R.S. 12:230, notice was published four times in the regular edition of the Marksville Weekly News. Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart were allegedly elected the directors of Tree of Life at the August 7, 2014 meeting.
Finally, the petition contended that the members of Tree of Life were harassed by the defendants, Leslie Draper, III ("Mr. Draper") and/or current members of the Tree of Calvary. Specifically, the petition contended that Tree of Life members were asked to leave the property by law enforcement, who were called at the behest of either Mr. Draper and/or current members of the Tree of Calvary Church.
In the 12th JDC action, Tree of Life asserted ordinary and extraordinary actions against the defendants, Mr. Draper and Tree of Calvary. First, the petition sought a writ of quo warranto, an extraordinary proceeding, to have the defendants show by what authority they claim control of the Tree of Life. Second, the petition prayed that the trial court issue a judgment declaring that (a) a valid merger never occurred between Tree of Life and Tree of Calvary, and (b) that Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart were the valid directors of Tree of Life. Finally, the petition sought a preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the directors of Tree of Life right to act on the corporation's behalf, and from interfering with Tree of Life's rightful ownership and possession of its property.
It is improper to cumulate an extraordinary proceeding with an ordinary proceeding. La. C.C.P. art. 462(2). However, since the defendants failed to file a dilatory exception raising the objection of improper cumulation of actions, we do not need to address this issue.
The defendants responded to the petition in the 12th JDC with peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and no right of action. The record herein contains only a limited portion of the record from the action in the 12th JDC, and the defendants' exceptions are not attached. However, the trial court's written reasons dated October 16, 2015 indicate that the defendants' exception of no right of action challenged the right of Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart to institute the action on behalf of Tree of Life. The trial court sustained the exception of no right of action and found that deficiencies in the noticing of and handling of the August 7, 2014 meeting precluded Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart from being validly elected directors of Tree of Life; therefore, they lacked authority to initiate suit on behalf of Tree of Life.
In support of its finding, the trial court first found the representatives of Tree of Life improperly relied upon the lost, destroyed or exigent provisions of La. R.S. 12:230(C) when calling the August 7, 2014 meeting. Instead, the trial court noted that the corporate records of Tree of Life, including the membership list, were not lost or destroyed, but were kept at the Tree of Calvary facility. Second, the trial court found that the membership list of Tree of Life was vital to making a determination that a quorum was present and voting at the August 7, 2014 meeting as required under La. R.S. 12:231, and thus the failure by representatives of Tree of Life to take any steps of acquire the membership list, made such a determination impossible. As a result of failure to comply with corporate formalities, the trial court found that the business conducted and the election of the board of directors for Tree of Life at the August 7, 2014 meeting was without effect.
A judgment in the 12th JDC action was signed on January 21, 2016. The judgment provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED, for the reasons set forth in the Court's written reasons for ruling filed into the record on October 16, 2015, that the Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action filed by the defendants is GRANTED. The Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Writ of Quo Warranto and Injunction Under Ordinary Process are hereby dismissed with
plaintiffs cast with all costs of court assessed by the Clerk of Court and charged to the suit record.
Neither a motion for new trial nor appeal from the January 21, 2016 judgment was filed by Tree of Life, Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, or Ms. Lanehart. However, as explained below, on December 18, 2015, the interim period between the issuance of the written reasons in the 12th JDC suit on October 16, 2015, and the signing of the judgment therein on January 21, 2016, a new suit was initiated on behalf of Tree of Life in the 18th JDC.
18th Judicial District Court
On December 18, 2015, a "Verified Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Injunctive Relief and Damages" was filed in the 18th Judicial District Court on behalf of the Tree of Life, by Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart, who again appeared asserting that they were directors of Tree of Life. The 18th JDC suit asserted many of the same facts as the 12th JDC action, to wit: (1) a formal merger between Tree of Life and Tree of Calvary in 2002 was never formally completed, thus, Tree of Life still existed as an entity; (2) Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart were elected directors of Tree of Life during the August 7, 2014 meeting; and (3) the assertion that the defendants, Mr. Draper and/or members of the Tree of Calvary called law enforcement to have the Tree of Life members removed from the property. However, the 18th JDC suit sought only injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from threatening and harassing the plaintiff, its members, and guests. The 18th JDC petition asserted that Tree of Life would suffer "irreparable injury" from "the potential loss of [Tree of Life's] property and physical harm to its members and guests on the property."
Paragraph 11 of the petition in the 18th JDC action acknowledged the pendency of the action in the 12th JDC, as follows:
11.
It is imperative to inform the court that in an attempt to peacefully negotiate this matter, TREE OF LIFE inadvertently, filed
a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Writ of Quo Warranto, And Injunction Under Ordinary Process in the 12th Judicial District Court, Parish of Avoyelles ... which that court denied. It is the fervent position of TREE OF LIFE that such court lacks jurisdiction over such matter. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred.
On January 27, 2016, after a judgment was entered in the 12th JDC suit, but devolutive appeal delays were still running, the defendants filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata as well as, an alternative declinatory exception raising the objection of lis pendens. The defendants attached the petition from the 12th JDC suit, the trial court's written reasons for judgment, and the judgment signed January 21, 2016. The defendants averred that the plaintiff should be precluded from attempting to forum shop and explained that there was very little difference between the two suits.
This objection no longer has any merit since neither a motion for new trial nor an appeal was taken from the January 21, 2016 judgment.
Tree of Life opposed the defendants' exception of res judicata arguing that the 18th JDC suit arose out of a separate transaction or occurrence than the 12thJDC suit. According to Tree of Life, the dispute in the 12th JDC focuses on the dispute over ownership and control of Tree of Life and its property, while the suit in the 18th JDC focuses on the "damages and threat of destruction" to the Tree of Life facility, a claim, which it contends is asserted for the first time in the second suit. Alternatively, Tree of Life argued for the application of La. R.S. 13:4232(A)(1), which provides that res judicata will not be applied when justified by exceptional circumstances. Finally, Tree of Life asserted that the trial court in the 12th JDC lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's immovable property was located in Pointe Coupee Parish, not Avoyelles Parish.
A hearing was held on March 29, 2016, and in a judgment signed June 23, 2016, the trial court in the 18th JDC suit sustained the defendants' exception of res judicata and dismissed Tree of Life's petition and assessed all costs against the plaintiff. In oral reasons for judgment, the trial court found that the injunctive relief sought in both suits was essentially the same. The trial court further noted that Tree of Life's assertion that the 12th JDC lacked subject matter jurisdiction was in reality an argument regarding venue. The trial court observed that any objection that Tree of Life had to venue in the 12th JDC suit was waived, when it filed suit and proceeded in that venue. Tree of Life now appeals the judgment from the 18th JDC and asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law in sustaining the defendants' exception of res judicata.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 531 provides as follows:
When two or more suits are pending in a Louisiana court or courts on the same transaction or occurrence, between the same parties in the same capacities, the defendant may have all but the first suit dismissed by excepting thereto as provided in Article 925. When the defendant does not so except, the plaintiff may continue the prosecution of any of the suits, but the first final judgment rendered shall be conclusive of all.
The doctrine of res judicata in Louisiana is set forth in La. R.S. 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.
The doctrine of res judicata is stricti juris; any doubt concerning application of the principle of res judicata must be resolved against its application. Kelty v. Brumfield, 633 So.2d 1210, 1215 (La. 1994). The jurisprudence interpreting La. R.S. 13:4231 has established five elements that must be satisfied for a finding that a second suit is precluded by res judicata: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 2007-2469 (La. 9/8/08), 993 So.2d 187, 194. Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002-1385 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So.2d 1049, 1053. The res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Matherne v. TWH Holdings, LLC, 2012-1878 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/6/13), 136 So.3d 854, 861, writ denied, 2014-0854 (La. 6/20/14), 141 So.3d 810.
Relevant to the instant action is La. R.S. 13:4232(A)(2), which provides that a judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff when the judgment in the first action dismissed the first action without prejudice. See also Bourgeois v. A.P. Green Industries, Inc., 2009-753 (La. App. 5th Cir. 3/23/10), 39 So.3d 654, 658, writ denied, 2010-0923 (La. 6/25/10), 38 So.3d 341. The first judgment in the 12th JDC does not specify whether the dismissal of the "plaintiffs" demands is with or without prejudice. It states only that the petition therein was "hereby dismissed with plaintiffs cast with all costs of court assessed by the Clerk of Court and charged to the suit record." When a judgment is silent as to whether it is dismissed with or without prejudice, the dismissal must be without prejudice. Allen v. Allen, 2016-0407 (La. App. 1st Cir. 12/22/16), 210 So.3d 477, 480; State ex rel. Dept. of Soc. Serv. v. A.P., 2002-2372 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/20/03), 858 So.2d 498, 503 n.10. Therefore, the dismissal as to the plaintiff, Tree of Life, in the 12th JDC suit is without prejudice, and under La. R.S. 13:4232(A)(2) it cannot serve to bar another suit by the plaintiff under the doctrine of res judicata. See Collins v. Ward, 2015-1993 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/16/16), 204 So.3d 235, 239 (order that did not indicate whether dismissal was with or without prejudice was considered to be without prejudice and could not form basis for a plea of res judicata); contrast Citizens Saving Bank v. G & C Development, L.L.C., 2012-1034 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2/15/13), 113 So.3d 1085, 1088 (judgment, rendered after trial on the merits, that did not specifically indicate claims were dismissed with prejudice had effect of a dismissal with prejudice and barred subsequent action under doctrine of res judicata). As a result, we find the district court in the 18th JDC erred as a matter of law in granting the defendants' exception of res judicata and dismissing the suit. Our finding pretermits consideration of arguments asserted by the parties herein.
We take note that Tree of Life is the only plaintiff in the instant matter. We pretermit discussion of any claims involving Ms. Romar, Ms. Callihan, and Ms. Lanehart since they did not appeal. --------
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the June 23, 2016 judgment of the trial court sustaining the peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata filed by the defendants/appellees, Tree of Calvary Baptist Church, Inc. and Leslie Draper, III, which dismissed the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, Tree of Life Baptist Church of Legonier, LA. We remand this matter for further proceedings. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the defendants/appellees, Tree of Calvary Baptist Church, Inc. and Leslie Draper, III.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.