LAW OFFI RICHARD E. LEE ‘810 MAIN STREET PINEVILLE, LOUISIANA 71360 619) 48-1391 FAX G18) 4483740, June 18, 2010 Honorable Carolyn Jones Ryland — Clerk of Court, Rapides Parish \~ P.O. Box 952 Alexandria, La. 71309-0952 RE: Rapides Parish Police Jury vs Dr. Thomas Reich Civil Suit #236,506 Rapides Parish Police Jury vs Catahoula Boys Hunting & Social Club, inc. Civil Suit #236,507 Rapides Parish Police Jury vs Richard E. Lee, et al Civil Suit #236,508 Dear Ms Ryland, Please find enclosed herein my Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata that I ask you to file in connection with the above captioned matter. By cover of this letter | have forwarded a legible copy of Mr. Ricky Sooter, Attorney for the Rapides Parish Police Jury. RELwwm ce: Mr. Thomas Reich Mr. Ricky SooterCIVIL SUIT NUMBER 236,506, 236,507 & 236,508 DIVISION “F” RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY 9™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES DR. THOMAS REICH, CATAHOULA. BOYS HUNTING & SOCIAL CLUB, INC, RICHARD E. LEE and BETTY LOU KRIST DENT STATE OF LOUISIANA PEREMPTORY EXCEPTION OF RES JU! Now into Court through undersigned counsel personally comes and appears DR. THOMAS REICH, CATAHOULA BOYS HUNTING & SOCIAL CLUB, INC..RICHARD E. LEE and BETTY LOU KRIST DENT who respectfully represent that: Nice Jury ys Catahoula Duck Club & Lodge, . Richard F. Leet’ Betty'f ou Krist Dent, Civil Suit #231,119 a Judgment was signed on October 2, 2008 dismissing the suit filed against Catahoula Duck Club and Lodge, LLC, Catahoula Boys Hunting and Social Club, Inc., Richard E. Lee and Betty Lou Krist Dent by the Police Jury and on June 15, 2010 a Judgment was signed dismissing the Police Jury's suit with prejudice. 2, Civil Suit #231,119 was filed April 4, 2008 and Civil Suits #236,506, #236,507 and 20; 2009 seeking to expropriate the same properties of the vil Suit #231,119. Exceptors specifically plead that the Judgment in Civil Suit #231,119 is res judicata in bar of the claims presented in Civil Suits #236,506, #236,507 and 236,508. Page 1 of 2WHEREFORE, Exceptors pray that this Exception be maintained and that there be Judgment herein dismissing Civil Suits #236,506, #236,507 and 236,508 at Plaintiff's costs. ICHARD E7LEE (#7904 810 Main Street Pineville, La.-71360_ hone (318) 448-1391 Facsimile (318) 448-3740 CERTIFICATE 1, Richard E. Lec, do hereby certify that | have forwarded a legible copy of the above and foregoing Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata to Ricky Soote ttomey for Rapides Parish Police Jury at P.O. Box 1791, Alexandria, La. 71303 on thegg@day . 2010. RICHARD E. LEE PLEASE SERVE Rapides Parish Police Jury through their Attorney Mr. Ricky Sooter 934 3" Street Page 2 of 2CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 236,506, 236,507 & 236,508 DIVISION “F” RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY 9" JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES THOMAS REICH, CATAHOULA BOYS HUNTING & SOCIAL CLUB, INC., RICHARD E. LEE and BETTY LOU KRIST DENT STATE OF LOUISIANA ORDER IT IS ORDERED THAT the Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata filed on behalf of THOMAS REICH, CATAHOULA BOYS HUNTING AND SOCIAL CLUB, INC., RICHARD} E. LEE and BETTY LOU KRIST DENT be and the same is hereby set for hearing on the, Le Z “@ day of. +2010. THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Alexandria, Rapides Parish, Louisiana on the / ee 2010. HONQRABLE GEORGE Mr. Ricky Sooter 934 3" Street Alexandria, La. 71301 Page | of 1CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 236,506, 236,507 & 236,508 DIVISION “F” | RAPIDES PARISH POLICE JURY 9™ JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VERSUS PARISH OF RAPIDES } THOMAS REICH, CATAHOULA | BOYS HUNTING & SOCIAL CLUB, | INC, RICHARD E. LEE and BETTY | LOU KRIST DENT STATE OF LOUISIANA OF RES JUDICATA The Police Jury has filed suit against Thomas Reich, Catahoula Boys Hunting and Social Club, Inc. and Richard E. Lee, Betty Lou Krist Dent seeking to expropriate a right of way across their property. In Civil Suit #231,119 the Defendants are the owners of the same properties that are at issue in the present Expropriation suits filed by the Police Jury. In Suit it had acquired from the #231,119 the Police Jury sought enforcement of an alleged right of way Succession of Richard Daigre (Probate #33,183) against the Catahoula Duck Club & Lodge, EL) The argument presented Was that the right OF Way! was of the Daigre property was conducted and that the Police Jury was not given prior notice of the seizure and sale in violation of the Mennonite notice requirement and that the predial servitudes entered into by Catahoula Duck Club, Richard E. Lee and Catahoula Boys were therefore null and void because the right of way or servitude of passage across the property of Catahoula Duck Lodge was still in effect. The Police Jury alleged that they owned a right of way across _ | Richard E. Lee and Betty Lou Dent Krist as a result of maintenance by the Police Jury. Defendants filed a Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action and Liberative Prescription. Exceplion of Prescription and Judgment was signed on October 7, 2008 dismissing the suit at Plaintiff's cost. On June 15, 2010 another Judgment was signed dismissing that suit with prejudice and assessed the Police Jury with all costs. ‘An appeal from the Judgment signed on October 7, 2008 was taken by the Police Jury and was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. Rapides Parish Police Jury vs Catahoula Duck Club & Lodge, etal, 2009-64 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/18/09) 24 So3d 988. Writ Page | of Swas denied by the La. Supreme Count. Rapides Parish Police Jury vs Catahoula Duck Club & Lodge, LLC, etal, 2009-2778 (La. 2/26/10). The Police Jury also alleged in Paragraph 2 that it had for many years owned, maintained and improved that portion of Stock Landing Road that traverses Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the partition in kind between Richard E. Lee, Homer E. Rudy and Jerry Ward that is recorded in Conveyance Book 935 Page 475 as shown by Certificate of Survey dated March 29,1978. A copy ofthat survey is attached hereto and made apart hereof at Same road is shown on Plaintif’s Exhil ia tohis Petition in the present i ante suit, The alleged road is reflected on two surveys which he attached. ‘The Police Jury filed the present expropriation s its #236,506 against Dr. Thomas Reich, #236,507 against the Catahoula Boys Hunting & Social Club, Inc. and Suit #236,508 against Richard E. Lee and Betty Lou Krist Dent on October 20, 2009. L -RS. 13:4231(2) provides: causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter The requirements that must exist for a Court to sustain an exception of res judicata under L.5.4.-R.S. 134231 were clearly set forth by our Supreme Court in Burguicres vs Pollingue, 2002,1385 (La. 2/25/03), 843 So2d 1049. The Supreme Court held: The civilian concept of res judicata is based upon a presumption of correctness. SOCEM O IIIS SISO RAMON ISA Most of the controversy and confusion in Louisiana surrounding res judicata prior to the 1990 amendment ‘oncerned whether there was:an “identity of cause.” i the 1990 amendment to'the res judicata statute, however, the chief inquiry is whether the second action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first action. (Citations omitted) While this is the central inquiry under the current statute, it is not the only inquiry. A reading of La. R.S. 13:4231 reveals that a second action is precluded when all of the following are satisfied: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the Page 2 of 5time of final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation. There is no dispute in the instant case that the first two requirements of the statute, the existence of a valid and final judgment, are met. For purposes of res judicata, a valid judgment is one rendered by a court with jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties after proper notice was given, La, R.S, 13:4231 emt, d (1990). Likewise, for purposes of La. R.S. 13:4231, a final judgment is one that «disposes of the merits in whole or in part. 1d. It is undisputed © that the judgment in the first litigation was both valid and | final, and we therefore find the first two requirements of La. RS. 13:4231 are satisfied. (At page 1053) In Louisiana prior to the 1990 amendment, it was clearly understood that res judicata applied only when both parties appeared before the court in the same capacity. (Citations omitted). This requirement was consistent with Planiol's explanation of Article 1351 of the Code Napoleon: Is it necessary now to enter into the long explanations which are traditional here, in order to observe that the identity of the parties in-the second case. which is necessary in order that the exception of res judicata may be used, does not mean the material identity of persons, but identity of capacity or quality? THORS O SIO USES SOO JURIST Thus, in both the common law and the civil law, in order for a second suit to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the parties must appear in the same capacities in both suits. Although not explicitly stated in the amended statute, we find the requirement La. R.S. 13:4231 that the parties be the same in order for a second suit to be precluded by operation of res judicata retains this “identity of capacity” component. ‘That is, under La. R.S, 13:4231 the parties are the same when they appear in the same capacities in both suits. (At page 1054) remedies arising out of the transaction ot occurrence. ‘The transaction or occurrence in Civil Suit #231,119 and the three suits involved here is that in Civil Suit #231,119 the Police Jury claimed that it had a “Servitude of Way for Public Road” granted to it across the property owned by Catahoula Duck Club & Lodge, LLC and that it had maintained and improved that Kind between n of Stock Landing Road that traverses Lots 1, 2 and 3 of the Pantitio por Richard E. Lee, Homer E, Rudy and Jerry Ward as shown by Certificate of Survey dated March Page 3 of 5