Charles T. Bruce and Mary A. Bruce VS Rhonda Lorraine

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOl1ISIANA CO IRT OF APPEAL FIRST CIFt UTT N0. 2013 CA 1829 CHARLES T. BRUCE AND MARY A. BRUCE VERSUS RHONDA LORRAINE n nV Judgment rendered May 2, 2014. V 0 Appealed from the 17m Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Lafourche, Louisiana Trial Court No. i22432 Honorable John E. LeBlanc, 7udge RENE' C. GAUTREAUX ATTORNEY FOR THIBODAUX, LA PLAINTIFFS- APPELLANTS CHARLES T. BRUCE AND MARY A. BRUCE DANIEL A. CAVELL ATTORNEY FOR THIBODAUX, LA DEFENDANT- APPELLEE RHONDA LORRAINE K K* K K* BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND McCLENDON, J7. PEITIGREW, J. The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment, signed on July 31, 2013, granting the defendanYs exception of resjudreataand dismissing plaintiffs' claims. It found that the plaintiffs` action for breach of contract ( for the sale of furniture) was precluded, because it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the sale of a home between the parties and was litigated in a prior suit in redhibition. After a review of the record and the applicable law, we find the trial court erred, and reverse and remand. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On March 21, 2003, Ray L. Rhymes and Rhonda Lorraine, as purchasers, entered into a cash sale with Charles T. and Mary A. Bruce, as sellers, to purchase immovable property and the home thereon, located at 261 E. 57' Street, Cut Off, in the Parish of Lafourche. The cash sale document reflects a purchase price of $ 1, 000. 00, and a counter letter dated that same date reflects the real price of the property and that the amount received by the Bruces was $ 460, 000. 00. In addition to the above sale, on or about March 23, 2003, the parties verbally contracted that Mr. Rhymes and Dr. Lorraine would also purchase some of the furniture in the home from the Bruces for a total purchase price of $24, 000. 00. The parties agreed that payment for the furniture would be made in two installments one payment of 12, 000. 00 on March 23, 2003 ( the date of the verbal eontract) and another payment of 12, 000. 00 to be made six months later. According to the briefs filed on appeal, shortly after the sale of the house, the roof began to leak. Also, according to the briefs, Mr. Rhymes and Dr. Lorraine withheld payment of the second installment on the purchase of the furniture, based on the alleged defect in the home. Apparently, the parkies attempted to reach a compromise concerning the alleged defect in the house and the payment owed on the furniture, but were unsuccessful. 2 Prior Suit Unable to successfully resolve their differences about the alleged defect in the house, Mr. Rhymes and Dr. Lorraine filed suit ir redhit uEion agair st the Bruces in the 17`n Judicial District Court, f amber 9930?. The matker was set for trial in August Prior to trial, the Bruces raised ar exc ption of res judicata, claiming that the 2012. action ciocket had been compromised prior to the suit in redhibition being filed. ( The Bruces apparently asserted that the parties had agreed that the Bruces would forgive $ 10, 000. 00 of the debt remaining on the verbal contract for the sale of the furniture in exchange for Mr. Rhymes and Dr. Lorraine not bringing an action in redhibition for the alleged roof defect.) The exception was heard on June 19, 2012, following which the trial court signed a judgment on August 7, 2012, denying the exception of res judicata, finding the Bruces failed to prove a compromise because it had not been memorialized in writing. A trial on the merits in the redhibition suit was held on August 15 and 16, 2012, and continued for closing arguments on September 28, 2012. According to the Bruces in briefs filed in connection with this appeal, the trial ,judge in the redhibition suit did not allow them to raise the sale of the furniture as a defense. On October 16, 2012, a judgment was signed in favor of Dr. Lorraine and agains the Bruces, ordering a reduction in the purchase price of the home of $30, 500. 00, and awarding Dr. Lorraine $ 5, 000. 00 for mental anguish and $ 7, 000. 00 in attorney`s fees. Suit On Which This Appeal Is Based On March 20, 2013, the Bruces filed a Petition for Breach of Contract in the 17"' Judicial District Court, docket Number 122432 against Dr. Lorraine. The Bruces alleged that Dr. Lorraine was in receipt of furniture, which she had agreed to purchase for a sum of $ 24,000. 00. They further alleged that Dr. Lorraine had paid the first installment of 12, 000. 00, but that the second installment of $ 12, 000. 00 had never been paid and remained owing. During the course of that litigation, Mr. Rhymes and Dr. Lorraine were divorced, and Mr. Rhymes eventually withdrew from the lawsuit. All subsequent litigation involved only Dr. Lorraine. 3 Dr. Lorraine responded ko the PEr tion with . n exception of es judicata, referring to the that in prior suit suit alleged denied. redhibition on a compramise the in sal f tn hc me, and asserting that the Bruces in f an exceps:i, = Dr. Lorraine Purther a; serte that the ru ss judicata, which 2xception was s ; ailed to assert a reconventional demand ( or any other pleading) alleging a cause of action for a breach of contract for the sale of the furniture, thus, entitling her to a grant of the exception of res judicata, and that the Bruces' claims be dismissed. Dr. Lorraine' s exception was heard on July 18, 2013, during which Dr. Lorraine asked the tria court to take judicial notice of the prior ( redhibition) suit, docket Number 99302. In that suit, the Bruces had alleged a compromise, but the trial court found they failed to prove one. Dr. Lorraine argued that pursuant to La C.C. P. art. 1061, the action for breach of contract regarding the sale of the furniture was a compulsory reconventional demand that must have been asserted and decided in the prior suit. The Bruces, on the other hand, introduced irrt9 evidence the contract of cash sale and counter letter for the sale of the home, noting that both made no mention of any contract for the sale of furniture. The Bruces also introduced into evidence the portions of the transcript from the prior trial, including Dr. Lorraine's and Mary Bruce' s testimony, concerning the separate verbal agreement regarding the sale of furniture, which the parties had verbally negotiated for a total priee of $24,0 0. 00, to be paid in two separate instaliments of $12, 000. 00 eaeh. The Bruces furkher noted that the triai court's ruling in the prior suit was not on the merits of the verbal contract of the sale of furniture, but was limited to the court's finding that the Bruces had faiied to prove a valid compromise. Thus, they claimed that the sale of the furnifure was not raised nor adjudged in the prior suit. The Bruces maintained that the two conEracts- one for the sale of the home, and the other, a verbal agreement for the sale of furniture, were tuvo wholly separate agreements, such home and the that the causes of other for the sale action of he one in redhibition on the sale of the the furniture did not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, such that the compulsory reconventional demand provision of La. C. C. P. art. 1061 does not apply. 4 The trial court found that the sal2 of the furniture was all part of the same transaction or occurrence as the saie of the house, and pursuant to La. R. S. 13: 4231, the final judgment in the redhibition suit was res judicatato th claims raised by the Bruces in this action. It granted the exception, and dismissed the Bruces' claims, by judgment signed July 31, 2013. This appeal by the Bruces followed. They assign error to the trial court's finding that the action for breach of contract for the sale of furniture arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the action for redliibit n, particularly in light of the fact that no evidence was produced at the hearing. on the ExGeption of resjudicata. APPLICABLE LAW Res judicata bars relitigation of a subject matter arising from the same transaction or occurrence of a previous suit. It promotes judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes. Pierrotti v. ] ohnson, 2011- 1317 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 3/ 19/ 12), 91 So. 3d 1056, 1063. The doctrine of resjudicata is codified in La. R.S. 13: 4231, 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, ta the fmllowing e ent: 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 accurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are e ingui. shed and me ged 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. khe judgment bars a subsequent action on those cause of ackion. . 3) A judgment in favor of either. the plaintifF or the defendant is concfusive, in any subsequent action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determinatfon was essential to that judgment. The chief inquiry is whether the second suit asserts a cause of action that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject of the first action. Id. The Louisiana Supreme Court has also emphasized that all of the following elements must be satisfied in order for resjudicatato preclude a second action: ( 5 1) the first judgment is valid and final; ( 2) the part+ are the same; ( 3) the cause or causes of es action asserted in the second suit existed at th time of final judgment in the first litigation; and ( 4) the cause or caus s of action assertec sn the second suit arose out of the same transactior or occurrenee *,hat wa the subject of the first litigation. Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002- 1385 1La. 2/ 25/ 03), 8 3 So. 2d 1049, 1053. The burden of proving the facts essential to sustaining the objection of res judicata is on the party pleading the objection. Pierrotti, 91 So. 3d at 1063. If any doubt exists as to its application, the exception must. be overruled and the second suit Id. The concept should be rejected when doubt exists as to whethe a maintained. p/aintiff' substantive rights actually have been previously add essed and finally s resolved. Id. E ( mphasis added.) A prior judgment has the authority of a thing adjudged only as to the matters put at issue by the pleadings and actually decided by the court or found to be a necessary cortsequence of the judgment rendered. Thibodaux v. Burns, 340 So. 2d 335, 338 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1976). ( Emphasis added.) Finally, the res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de nouo. Pierrotti, 91 So. 3d at 1063. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1061( B) states that the defendant in the principal action, except in an action for divorce, sha// assert in a reconventional demand all causes of action that he may have against a plaintiff that arise out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the principal action. 2006- 560 ( La. App. 5 Cir. 11/ 28/ 06), 947 So. 2d 76, 78. Classen v. Hofmann, Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1061 and La. R.S. 13: 4231 must be rEad in pari materia. Id. at p. 80. APPLICATION OF LAVV/ AIVAL.YSIS In this case, there are two separate eontracts: one for the sale of the Bruces' home, immovable property; and another, for the saie of furniture, movable properly. The trial court in this matt2r noted the differences in the two contracts in its oral reasons for judgment: the contract for the sale of the house must be 'sn writing and recorded, the contract for the sale of the furniture, does not, and was not. We further note that the contract for the sale of the house included in the record before us 6 contains no mention of the furniture ro h parties" verbal agreement for the sale of that furniture. Although the parties are the same, the a jects different and separate. We also nate that ¬ th s r aatker, f the two contracts are wholly o evidence was presented at the hearing of the exception of resjudicata;_th t i, i ourt sim ly o k judieial notice of the prior suit, as it concluded with a final ; udgment. fVo transcript of those proceedings was entered into evidence, and is not included in the record before us. The parties do not dispute that no evidence was presented in the prior suit concerning the verbai agreement for the sale of furniture; unly evidence was aresented in attempts to prove the compromise. Indeed, the existence of that contract was only considered insofar as the Bruces asserted that it constituted. a compromise effeetuated prior to the suit in redhibition being filed. As noted earlier, the tria9 ourt simply found that the Bruces failed to prove a valid compromise, and on that basis aenied their exception of res judicata. We find no proof in the record before us that the merits of the contract for the sale of furniture were considered, much less adjudged in the prior suit. The record before us confirms that only the merits of Dr. Lorraine' s claims in redhibition were considered and adjudged, as reflected by the finai judgment in that suit, awarding her a reduction in the purchase price, together wsth damages for mental anguish and attorney' s fees. On de novo review of the record bef re us, which contains no evidence, we find that Dr. Lorraine, who bore the b. rden of proof, learly did not meet her burden of proving that the two contracts arose out of th same transaction or occvrrence, ar that the merits of the sale of the furniture and the afleged w onpayment of thak contract were litigated and adjudged in the prior suit. Indeed, the record before us reflects that the opposite is the case; that cause of action was not raised, no evidence was presented, and the issues related thereto were not adjudged. For these same reasons, we reject khe argument that the sale nf the furniture was a compulsory reconventional demand that had to be raised in the prior suit in redhibition pursuant to La. C. C. P. art. 1061( B). 7 CONGL TON Accordingly, we conclude the t iai cc urt e- r d as a n etter of law in granting Dr. Lorraine' s exc ati n o' res ; r, judgment of the ±rial courr is ic ra a neretay r a i 7p.; rar sa-, t;. : court for further proceedings cansistert herewAt s, the appellee, Dr. Rhonda Lorraine. REVERSED AND REMANDED. pis e7 g the tFi, l: si rnatt laint ffs' c9aims. is rEarc a eu t The the trial of thie appeal are assessed to

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.