136 So. 3d 261
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Case arises from eviction proceeding in First City Court, New Orleans, family dispute over a duplex at 6348-50 Colbert Street.
- Surviving spouse Mr. Krecek holds a life usufruct and is entitled to dispose of assets; Dick children are naked owners subject to usufruct.
- April 16, 2013, Krecek filed a rule for possession for nonpayment of rent; trial occurred April 25, 2013.
- On trial date, Mrs. Dick filed declinatory exceptions of lis pendens and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- A prior injunction petition by Krecek against Dick and others related to harassment was filed March 12, 2013 in Civil District Court.
- Trial court denied the exceptions and granted possession to Krecek; Dick appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lis pendens was proper given the injunction action. | Dick contends prior injunction suit and eviction involve same transaction. | Dick argues two suits share same transaction and parties in same capacities. | Lis pendens not warranted; suits do not involve same transaction or parties in same capacity. |
| Whether the declinatory exceptions constitute a compulsory reconventional demand exceeding jurisdiction. | Krecek asserts reconventional demand improperly framed as exceptions; jurisdiction unaffected. | Dick argues reconventional demand exceeds parish/city court limit triggering transfer. | Not a compulsory reconventional demand; no transfer required; court proper in denying lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hy-Octane Investments, Ltd. v. G & B Oil Products, Inc., 702 So.2d 1057 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1997) (defines transaction or occurrence; case-by-case basis)
- Revel v. Charamie, 926 So.2d 582 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2006) (lis pendens requires same transaction, same parties, and multiple suits)
- Glass v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 832 So.2d 403 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (defines two-suit requirement for lis pendens)
- Manard III PLC v. Falcon Law Firm PLC, 119 So.3d 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2012) (res judicata framework for lis pendens)
- Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, L.L.P., 806 So.2d 163 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (identity of parties in same capacity for res judicata)
- In re Succession of Bernat, 123 So.3d 1277 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2013) (case-by-case transaction/occurrence assessment)
- 727 Toulouse, L.L.C. v. Bistro at the Maison De Ville, L.L.C., 122 So.3d 1152 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (review of legal standard on lis pendens)