Butler v. ReederButler v. Reeder
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gothard
This is an appeal of a trial court decision, granting defendant’s exception of res judica-ta and effectivеly dismissing the lawsuit. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.
On March 6,1990, appellant, Perrin Butler, filed suit against appellee, Dr. William Reed-er, in the 22nd Judicial District Court for the Parish of St. Tammany. The suit, number 90-11068, sought damages for intentional infliction of emоtional distress, arising out of Reeder’s alleged affair with Butler’s wife pri- or to their separation and divorce. Previously, оn October 25, 1989, and November 16, 1989, Butler filed suit numbers 389-540 and 390-651 in the 24th Judicial Court for the Parish of Jefferson. Suit number 389-540 (the contract suit) named Reeder as defendant and alleged his intentional and/or tortuous interference with Butler’s marriage contract. Suit number 390-651 (the defamation suit) named as defendants Reeder, Butler’s
In response to the 90-11068 petition filed in St. Tammany Parish, Reeder filed a decli-natory exception of lis pendеns and exception and/or contradictory motion to char ge venue based on forum non conveniens. On August 16, 1990, a judgment was rendered, transferring 90-11068 to the 24th Judicial District Court, where it was docketed as suit number 420-977 (the emotional distress suit). Reed-er’s motion to consolidate the emotional distress suit with the defamation suit was denied on October 10, 1991. Reeder then filed an exсeption of res judicata or alternative motion to dismiss the emotional distress suit pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 425. Reeder argued that the complaints were previously adjudicated in the contract suit and/оr the plaintiff attempted to divide a cause of action in contravention of LSA-Code Civ.Proc.Art. 425, and that the emotional distress suit should be dismissed. On December 15, 1992, judgment was rendered in favor of Reeder, granting his exception of res judicata pursuant to LSA-C.C. art. 3556(31) and
RES JUDICATA
The law of res judicаta applicable to the present ease is set forth in the former
The authority of the thing adjudged takes plaсe only with respect to what was the object of the judgment. The thing demanded must be the same; the demand must be founded on thе same cause of action; the demand must be between the same parties, and formed by them against each other in the same quality.3
Additionally, LSA-C.C. Art. 3506(31) [formerly LSA-C.C. Art. 3556(31) prior to its redesignation in 1991] defines the term “thing adjudged” as follows:
Thing adjudged is said of that which hаs been decided by a final judgment, from which there can be no appeal, either because the appеal did not he, or because the time fixed by law for appealing is elapsed, or because it has been confirmed on the appeal.
In analyzing the law of res judicata, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp.,
As a result of our civilian heritage, res judicata under Louisiana law is perceived to be much narrower in scope than its counterpаrt in common law jurisdictions. See 51 Tul.L.Rev. 611 (1977); Maloney, Preclusion Devices in Louisiana; Collateral Estoppel, 35 La.L.Rev. 158 (1974). Louisiana legislative authority for res judicata establishes a presumption of correctness and precludes rеlitigation of the object of the judgment only when there is (1) an*101 identity of the parties, (2) an identity of “cause” and (3) an identity of thе thing demanded. C.C. 2285-2287, 3556(31); Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La.1976); Sliman v. McBee,311 So.2d 248 (La.1975); Scurlock Oil Co. v. Getty Oil Co.,294 So.2d 810 (La.1974). The absence of any oí these identities is fatal to a plea of res judicata.
The applicable
It is well settled that the doctrine of res judicata is stricti juris and “[a]ny doubt as tо compliance with its requirements is to be resolved in favor of maintaining the plaintiffs action.” Greer v. State,
Therefore, we cоnclude it was error for the lower court to sustain defendant’s exception of res judicata. Accordingly, the judgment grаnting the exception of res judicata is reversed. The matter is hereby remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Also pending during this period was a dental malpractice claim filed by Mr. Butler against Dr. Reeder in Reeder's capacity as Mrs. Butlеr’s dentist.
. See Butler v. Reeder,
. R.S. 13:4231 has since been substantially amended by Acts 1990, No. 521. In addition to making substantive changes in the law of res judicata, Act No. 521 рrovided:
This Act shall become effective January 1, 1991, and shall apply to all civil actions filed on or after Januаry 1, 1991. The preclusive effect and authority of a judgment rendered in an action filed before the effective date of this Act shall be determined by the law in effect prior to January 1, 1991.
Since both the contract suit and the original emotiоnal distress suit were filed before January 1, 1991, we will apply the res judicata law in effect prior to the amendments made by Act No. 521.
. The December 15, 1992 judgment in the emotional distress suit was rendered only on the lower court's erroneous interpretation of res ju-dicata. Whether the suit also fails to state a cause of action is not before us.
. See also Amerson v. D.O.T.,