Stroscher v. Stroscher - 2001-2769 ( La. App. 1 Cir 02/14/03), 845 So. 2d 518

Rule:

The objection of no cause of action is properly raised by the peremptory exception and questions whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. The purpose of an exception raising the objection of no cause of action is to determine the sufficiency in law of the petition. In reviewing a trial court's ruling sustaining an exception raising the objection of no cause of action, the appellate court should subject the case to a de novo review.

Facts:

Cynthia Barton and Gregory Stroscher, were divorced on March 9, 1999. The Family Court accepted various stipulations by the parties, primarily concerning issues of child custody. Subsequently, the Family Court signed a consent judgment purportedly reflecting those stipulations. Cynthia then moved the Family Court to vacate the consent judgment, alleging that it was not consistent with the parties’ stipulations. According to Cynthia, the consent judgment contained a “no prior act evidence” clause prohibiting the introduction of evidence regarding either party’s prior acts at subsequent custody hearings, which was not part of the parties’ stipulations. The trial court denied Cynthia’s request. Subsequently, Cynthia sought to have the consent judgment annulled for ill practices, but Gregory claimed that the matter was barred by res judicata and failed to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled against Cynthia and imposed sanctions. Cynthia appealed. 

Issue:

Did the trial court properly sustain peremptory exception on the ground of lack of cause of action and res judicata? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the trial court properly sustained the exception raising the objection of no cause of action because the ex-wife's allegation of improper representation was not a legally recognized basis for granting an action in nullity. Moreover, the court held that the trial court properly determined that res judicata, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:4321, applied to bar relitigation of the issue of whether the language in the consent judgment conformed to the parties' stipulations. The issue had already been decided in the ex-husband's favor. The sanctions imposed were proper. While the court refused to return the ex-wife's brief, it did grant the ex-husband's motion for sanctions.