176 So. 3d 663
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- SCS Enterprises filed a petition for damages and declaratory judgment against Dean St. Pierre on Sept. 23, 2014, alleging embezzlement and a release of claims in the 2010 agreement.
- The 2010 Stock Purchase & Repayment of Debt Agreement allegedly released St. Pierre from claims related to $850,000 owed to SCS with broad release language.
- SCS argued that embezzlement/conversion occurring from 2008–2009 was not intended to be released by the 2010 agreement.
- St. Pierre asserted a peremptory exception of res judicata, attaching what he claimed was the true copy of the 2010 agreement.
- A hearing on the res judicata exception occurred on Dec. 9, 2014; the trial court granted the exception on Dec. 19, 2014.
- The appellate court vacated and remanded because the 2010 agreement was never admitted into evidence at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof for res judicata | SCS argues St. Pierre bears burden to prove elements. | St. Pierre contends burden rests with SCS to disprove release. | Burden on movant; remand for proper evidentiary handling. |
| Whether the alleged compromise/ release covered the disputed claims | SCS contends embezzlement claims were not released. | St. Pierre argues the release bars all related claims. | Remand; record insufficient to determine scope of release. |
| Adequacy of evidentiary foundation for the compromise document | SCS asserts the document is central but not properly admitted. | St. Pierre argues language in pleadings suffices for consideration. | Vacate and remand due to lack of proper admission of the agreement. |
| Effect of adding 'known and unknown' to the agreement | SCS contends transcription/manipulation of terms is improper. | St. Pierre defends the language as part of the agreement. | Remand; issue not properly resolved in record. |
| Admissibility of witness testimony at hearing | SCS argues witnesses should be permitted per request for additional evidence. | St. Pierre relies on the existing record. | Remand; evidentiary gaps require further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortego v. State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 689 So.2d 1358 (La. 1997) (compromise can form basis for res judicata)
- Rudolph v. D.R.D. Towing Co., LLC, 59 So.3d 1274 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2011) (burden to prove essential elements by preponderance)
- Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 983 So.2d 84 (La. 2008) (evidence must be properly offered and admitted)
- Bovie v. St. John the Baptist Parish, 125 So.3d 1158 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2013) (remand permitted when evidence not properly admitted)