Donna M. Terral VS William Lyle Terral
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CA 0170 DONNA M TERRAL VERSUS WILLIAM LYLE TERRAL Judgment Rendered JUN 1 1 2010 On Appeal from the Twenty Second Judicial District Court In and for the St Tammany State of Louisiana Docket No 2000 14613 Honorable Dawn Amacker Judge Presiding Robert C Lowe Counsel for PlaintiffAppellant Suzette Marie Smith Donna M Terral New Orleans Louisiana David R Paddison Covington Louisiana Counsel for DefendantAppellee William Lyle Terral BEFORE DOWNING GAIDRY AND McCLENDON 33 McCLENDON J An exwife appeals a judgment sustaining her former husband exception s raising the objection of res judicata in her action for a supplemental partition of community property For the following reasons we affirm the trial court s judgment FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Dr William Lyle Terral and Donna M Terral were married on September 11 1982 Mrs Terral filed a petition for divorce on October 10 2000 and therein sought a partition of the community property pursuant to LSAR S 2801 9 On September 6 2001 the trial court signed a judgment of divorce thereby terminating the community retroactive to the date of filing During the marriage the Terrals acquired five limited partnership interests in Wilkinson Kaolin Associates WKA On March 18 2002 Dr Terral relying upon information from J Barry Sellers a general partner of WKA sold all five shares to Sellers for a total of 70 or 14 per share 000 000 On July 8 2002 the parties entered into a Consent Judgment Partitioning Community Property The consent judgment provided in pertinent i part IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the parties have sold their 4 interest in Wilkinson Kaolin 95 Associates for 70 with the agreement that these proceeds 000 would be used to pay toward the outstanding joint income tax liabilities federal and state for the year 2000 and late payment penalties and interest William L Terral is to provide Donna M Terral with written support of these tax payments within fourteen 14 days of May 23 2002 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUGED AND DECREED and the parties having acknowledged that after taking into consideration their respective assumption of all community debts and the equal division of all community assets the amounts allotted to each are approximately equal in value and they do hereby relieve and release each other from further accountings expressly stating that both are satisfied with this partition and with reimbursement to their respective estates It is uncontested that Mrs Terral posed no objection to this sale Z The consent judgment was signed by the trial court on July 9 2002 2 All claims regarding community property and reimbursements of any kinds or nature are hereby settled and compromised Emphasis added The Consent Judgment also incorporated in extenso a Joint Detailed Descriptive List including the values of the property agreed to by the parties as well as to which party the asset would be partitioned With regard to the interest in WKA the Joint Detailed Descriptive List provided In DMT WLT Poss Item Value No 000 70 000 70 T S Value Description Partition To Of 14 95 4 interest in Wilkinson WLT 4 5 WLT Kaolin Associates Ltd Footnote 4 on the Joint Detailed Descriptive List recognized that the community interest in Wilkinson Kaolin Associates was sold to the general partners for 000 70 with the agreement that the proceeds from the sale would be used to pay the outstanding joint income tax liabilities for the year 2000 In connection therewith the parties joint 2000 federal and state income tax liabilities were listed in items 52 and 53 and the parties stipulated that those taxes were also ed partitioned to Dr Terral On February 28 2008 Mrs Terral filed a Petition for Supplemental Partition of Community Property Therein Mrs Terral alleges that unbeknownst to her on February 28 2007 Dr Terral filed a complaint against J Barry Sellers and Sellers Management Services LLC for damages related to their misrepresentation of the value of the WKA interest Mrs Terral further alleged based on information and belief that the suit was settled on September 27 2007 with Dr Terral receiving additional proceeds from the sale of the WKA interest Mrs Terral alleged that the WKA interest remained an unpartitioned asset of the community of acquets and gains formerly existing between the 3 The Joint Detailed Descriptive List provides that SStipulated and TTraversed 4 The suit William L Terral v Barry Sellers et al bearing number 507cu00073 CAR was on the docket of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 3 parties Mrs Terrel sought a judgment decreeing a supplemental partition partitioning the unpartitioned community property i On April 29 2008 Dr Terral filed a Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata asserting that the WKA interest had previously been partitioned to him in the prior Consent Judgment and therefore was his separate property Mrs Terral opposed the motion contending that the parties interest in WKA had not been partitioned in the Consent Judgment Following a hearing the trial court took the matter under advisement and subsequently granted Dr Terral s exception finding that the interest in WKA had been partitioned to Dr Terral in the Consent Judgment Mrs Terral has filed this appeal to seek review of the trial court ruling s In her sole assignment of error she asserts that the trial court committed legal error in granting Dr Terral exception raising the objection of res judicata s Louisiana Revised Statutes 13 4231 provides the general principles regarding res judicata as follows 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 1 If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff 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 merged in the judgment 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 5 Mrs Terral also sought a temporary restraining order as well as a preliminary and permanent injuction to enjoin Dr Terral of disposing or encumbering the alleged funds received in settlement Although the trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order the court later dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied Mrs Terral request for a preliminary s injunction Mrs Terral sought review of the trial court ruling but both this court and the s Louisiana Supreme Court denied writs See Terral v Terral 080781 La 1 Cir App 78 08 writ action writ denied 08 1903 La 10 994 So 542 Unpublished 08 31 2d W Additionally the exceptions to res judicata are found in LSAR 13 which S 4232 states in pertinent part that in an action for partition of community property and settlement of claims between spouses under R 9 the judgment has S 2801 the effect of res judicata only as to causes of action actually adjudicated The burden of proof is upon the pleader to establish the essential facts to sustain the plea of res judicata Patin v Patin 00 0969 p 5 La 1 Cir 6 808 App 01 22 2d So 673 676 Mrs Terral asserts that the community interest in WKA has never been partitioned She notes that the community interest in WKA had already been sold at the time the consent judgment had been entered and the sale proceeds were used to pay the parties joint income tax liability As such she opines that the former community no longer owned an interest in WKA at the time of the partition but rather the former community owned the proceeds from the sale of that interest Mrs Terral contends that the rights flowing from the former community interest in WKA was not partitioned to Dr Terral and that any recovery in the undisclosed settlement belonged to the community of acquets and gains formerly existing between the parties Despite Mrs Terral position that the interest in WKA had never been s partitioned item 14 in the parties Joint Detailed Descriptive List clearly assigned the parties 4 interest in Wilkinson Kaoilin Associates Ltd to Dr Terral 95 An agreement entered into by the parties for the explicit purpose of settling their community property partition suit is a transaction or compromise See LSAC C art 3071 and Junca v Junca 98 1723 p 7 La 1 Cir 12 747 App 99 28 2d So 767 771 6 It is of no moment that the community interest in WKA had been s liquidated prior to the parties submission of the Joint Detailed Descriptive List Even assuming that a distinction could be made between the proceeds of the s community sale of its interest in WKA and the rights flowing from the former 6 We do not address the issue of lesion insofar as it has not been raised by either party Further it appears from the record that the claim of lesion may be prescribed 5 community interest in WKA the plain wording of item 14 nonetheless awarded the entirety of the community interest in WKA to Dr Terral See LSA C arts s 2045 and 2046 Moreover footnote 4 does not modify the clear wording of item 14 but it dictates that Dr Terral was required to use the proceeds from the sale of the asset to pay the outstanding joint income tax liabilities for the year 2000 As the trial court recognized if the parties had intended to remove item 14 from Dr s Terral list of partitioned assets either could have done so by removing the S stipulated by the WKA interest in item 14 when footnote 4 was added to the document Accordingly the trial court properly recognized the res judicata effect of the settlement DECREE For the foregoing reasons the trial court judgment sustaining Dr s s Terral peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata and dismissing Mrs Terral suit is affirmed s Costs of this appeal are assessed to Donna M Terral AFFIRMED Louisiana Civil Code article 2045 provides Interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties Louisiana Civil Code article 2046 provides When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties intent 8 An alternative argument could be made that the cause of action against Sellers for fraud was a separate cause of action that arose at the time of the sale However based on the retroactive termination date of the community at the time that said sale occurred the parties were co owners of the property in indivision See LSA C 2369 Thus both Dr Terral and Mrs Terral 1 would have each had a personal right to pursue the cause of action analysis the result herein would remain the same 0 However under this
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
