Land v. Vidrine
2011 La. LEXIS 600
La.2011Background
- The Lands died in 2007; Polly and Gary sought to share estate assets with siblings, prompting attorney Vidrine to draft an intestate petition in East Baton Rouge Parish.
- Vidrine later filed to probate the Lands' wills in East Baton Rouge Parish, triggering malpractice claims in 2008 by three siblings.
- Vidrine moved to transfer venue to Lafayette Parish, arguing Lafayette was proper due to his domicile, office, and drafting location, and the East Baton Rouge ruling granted the improper-venue exception.
- After transfer, Vidrine pursued an exception of peremption; the Lafayette court held the case barred by peremption based on an untimely filing in Lafayette.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit arguing improper venue in East Baton Rouge should control and that peremption analysis should allow review of venue.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve (i) review procedure for venue rulings and (ii) whether a transferee court must independently decide venue for peremption purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May an adverse venue ruling be reviewed on appeal of final judgment? | Land argued for appellate review of venue ruling during final judgment | Vidrine contended only supervisory writ review is allowed | Venue rulings reviewable only by supervisory writ |
| Must transferee court independently decide venue when ruling on peremption? | Peremption analysis requires venue considerations for timely filing | Transferee should not reweigh venue; law of the case applies | Transferee court must independently determine venue for peremption purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- LeBlanc v. Thomas, 23 So.3d 241 (La. 2009) (venue as a convenience, not jurisdictional; misalignment with merits)
- Alexander v. Palazzo, 5 So.3d 950 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009) (review of adverse venue rulings by appellate court)
- M & L Indus., L.L.C. v. Hailey, 923 So.2d 869 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (waiver principle for venue review when supervisory writ not sought)
- Danny Weaver Logging, Inc. v. Norwel Equipment Co., 766 So.2d 701 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2000) (supervisory writ as proper review for adverse venue rulings)
- Farrar v. Certified Coatings Of California, Inc., 38 So.3d 940 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (venue review limited to supervisory writ)
- Phillips v. Patterson Ins. Co., 704 So.2d 246 (La. 1998) (precedent permitting review of venue decisions in peremption context)
- Savoie v. Rubin, 820 So.2d 486 (La. 2002) (articulates interlocutory nature of venue rulings)