Henkelmann v. Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC
145 So. 3d 465
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC developed The Preserve at Whiskey Island subdivision in Tangipahoa Parish and recorded a restrictive declaration designating common areas for all lot owners.
- Henkelmanns purchased Lot 12 in 2006 and noted a marina/boathouse would be completed within 180 days.
- The Henkelmanns sued in 2008 for declaratory judgment, alleging planned development of common areas, failure to timely build the marina/boathouse, possible abandonment, and seeking rescission, damages, and fees.
- The trial court recognized the servitude in the common areas but denied rescission and damages; a prior unpublished appellate decision affirmed without issue.
- In 2012, the Henkelmanns filed a separate suit for specific performance; Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC asserted res judicata based on the prior final judgment and the same transaction, leading to dismissal of the second suit.
- Whiskey Island Preserve, LLC sought attorney fees for a frivolous appeal, and the appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal and denied frivolous appeal damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second suit | Henkelmanns: not barred because the second suit arose from abandonment, not the same claim. | Whiskey Island: the second suit arises from the same transaction and should be barred. | Barred; second suit arising from the same transaction is precluded. |
| Whether abandonment was litigated in the first suit | Abandonment not raised in 2008 and thus not required to be asserted then. | Abandonment was urged in the first suit and could have been raised as a specific performance claim. | Abandonment could have been litigated in the first suit; failure to do so does not avoid res judicata. |
| Whether exceptional circumstances justify relief from res judicata | There were exceptional circumstances due to alleged non-admission of abandonment. | No exceptional circumstances; facts show knowledge and opportunity to assert measures earlier. | No exceptional circumstances; res judicata applies. |
| Whether the appeal is frivolous and merits damages under Art. 2164 | Appeal lacks merit; remedies appropriate to merit concerns. | Damages for frivolous appeal may be awarded if appeal solely for delay or not sincerely believed. | Damages for frivolous appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 993 So.2d 187 (La. 2008) (identifies the five res judicata elements and chief inquiry on the second action)
- Stroscher v. Stroscher, 845 So.2d 518 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (finality and res judicata effect; two aspects of preclusion)
- Kevin Associates, LLC v. Crawford, 917 So.2d 544 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2005) (exceptional circumstances and relief from res judicata)
- Guarantee Systems Const. & Restoration, Inc. v. Anthony, 728 So.2d 398 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1998) (frivolous appeal standards; strict construction)