Denny E. Gamble, Jr. v. Lesa Galjour Gamble
54,595-CW
La. Ct. App.Jan 18, 2023Background
- Denny and Lesa Gamble married under a recorded marriage contract establishing a separate-property regime.
- Denny filed for divorce in Caddo Parish (May 26, 2020); Lesa filed for divorce in Orleans Parish three days later and sought incidental relief (spousal support, partition, use/occupancy).
- Denny amended his Caddo petition several times to allege adultery, seek revocation of inter vivos donations, partition, and other relief; Lesa repeatedly excepted lis pendens and prematurity.
- Procedural conflict produced parallel suits and multiple lis pendens rulings: Caddo denied Lesa’s exceptions; Orleans initially dismissed Lesa’s incidental claims (later reversed by Fourth Circuit, then reinstated by Louisiana Supreme Court).
- The Caddo court permitted Denny to proceed on his property and revocation claims, concluding the claims related to the same transaction (termination of the marriage) and that the revocation claim related back to the original petition.
- This Court (appellate) reviewed the Caddo court’s denial of Lesa’s third exception of lis pendens and denied Lesa’s writ, concluding the trial court properly allowed Denny’s claims to proceed; Lesa was cast with costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lesa’s Orleans declaratory action is lis pendens to Denny’s Caddo revocation and property claims | Lesa: she filed first on revocation issue, so Orleans is the first suit and Caddo must be dismissed | Denny: his revocation claim arises from pre‑petition conduct and therefore relates back to his original Caddo petition | Held: Denied Lesa’s exception — revocation claim relates back and the suits arise from same transaction (termination of marriage) so Caddo may proceed |
| Whether Denny’s fourth supplemental petition (revocation of donations) may relate back to the original divorce petition under La. C.C.P. art. 1153 | Lesa: revocation is a new, separate cause of action that did not exist until after divorce and cannot relate back | Denny: facts giving rise to revocation (conduct during marriage) pre‑dated filing so the amendment relates back to the original pleading | Held: The amendment relates back; relation‑back doctrine applies where claim arises from same conduct/transaction and no prejudice shown |
| Whether a defendant may contemporaneously file separate ancillary/incidental relief in a different court (scope of La. C.C. art. 105) | Lesa: Supreme Court precedent is inapplicable because revocation is not listed in art. 105 ancillary matters | Denny: relief arises from termination of marriage and is within transaction covered by lis pendens rule | Held: Supreme Court precedent controls — one cannot file separate contemporaneous ancillary suits in a different court; relief arising from termination of marriage is part of same transaction for lis pendens purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamble v. Gamble, 336 So. 3d 452 (La. 2022) (defendant in a divorce cannot contemporaneously file separate ancillary relief in another court; termination of marriage is the controlling transaction)
- Aisola v. Louisiana Citizens Property Ins. Corp., 180 So. 3d 266 (La. 2015) (lis pendens test mirrors res judicata analysis)
- Patten/Jenkins BR Popeyes, L.L.C. v. SRG Baton Rouge II, L.L.C., 306 So. 3d 453 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2019) (standard of review for lis pendens is de novo)
- Fortenberry v. Glock, Inc., 741 So. 2d 863 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1999) (relation back applied to add claims/parties when facts and prescription period support it)
- Hunsucker v. Global Business Furniture, 768 So. 2d 698 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (relation‑back doctrine should be liberally applied absent prejudice)