113 So. 3d 355
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Countrywide filed executory process against Thomas on April 8, 2009, resulting in a writ of seizure and sale of her Orleans Parish property.
- Property was sold by the Orleans Parish Sheriff to Countrywide on May 19, 2011 for $83,334.
- Thomas filed a reconventional demand July 15, 2011 seeking various injunctions and damages.
- Countrywide asserted res judicata and improper accumulation of actions in March 2012; trial court heard May 11, 2012.
- Thomas filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy February 16, 2012; automatic stay ended April 19, 2012; the appellate court affirmed the res judicata ruling, dismissing Thomas’ reconventional demand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Thomas’ reconventional demand in executory proceedings. | Thomas argues seizure/sale order is not a judgment, so res judicata should not apply. | Countrywide contends the order is a valid executory-process judgment and res judicata bars subsequent claims. | Yes; res judicata bars the reconventional demand under Avery factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avery v. Citi-Mortgage, Inc., 15 So.3d 240 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009) (sets elements for applying res judicata to executory process judgments)
- Antoine v. Chrysler Fin. Corp., 782 So.2d 651 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2001) (damages for wrongful seizure precluded by res judicata when executory process final)
- Bickham Motors, Inc. v. Crain, 185 So.2d 271 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1966) (recognizes order of seizure and sale can be treated as judgment for res judicata)
- Reed v. Meaux, 292 So.2d 557 (La.1974) (describes executory process as in rem, strict compliance required)
- Lac-our Plantation Co. v. Jewell, 173 So. 761 (La.1937) (early view on seizure and sale relevance to res judicata)