Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-23-2024
Case Style:
Melissa Denielle Sinclair v. Seth D. Sinclair
Case Number: 201952
Judge: Erika L Green
Court: Family Court, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Baton Rouge, Louisiana divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution action.
On April 30,2020, Danielle filed a "Petition to Rescind Extrajudicial Partition Agreement" contending that the community property agreement was in violation of La. Civ. Code art. 814 and should be rescinded on account of lesion. In response, Seth filed dilatory and peremptory exceptions and affirmative defenses. On August
12, 2020, the trial court sustained Seth's exception of vagueness and gave Danielle thirty days to amend her petition. Danielle timely filed a "First Amending and Supplemental Petition to Rescind Extrajudicial Partition Agreement."[1] In the supplemental petition, Danielle contends that the value of Seth's "BRPD retirement" was erroneous, resulting in her receiving less by more than one-fourth of her one-half portion of the community property.
Danielle's petition to rescind and amending and supplemental petition to rescind came before the trial court on February 10 and 11, 2022. During the trial, the parties submitted joint exhibit one into evidence stipulating to the values and possessions of the community assets, liabilities, and reimbursement claims other than the value of Seth's Baton Rouge Police Department retirement[2] and Seth's home mortgage reimbursement claim. The parties agreed that the value of those items would be tried before the court.
On May 16, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of Danielle and against Seth, rescinding the community property agreement on the grounds of lesion. The trial court issued written reasons for judgment. In its written reasons, the trial court found the value of Seth's BRPD account to be $48,365.27 and the net value of the community to be $92,352.07.
Seth timely filed a "Motion to Amend Judgment to Correct Errors of Calculation, and For New Trial on Finding Lesion with Corrected Calculations" requesting that the May 16, 2022 judgment be amended to correct errors of calculation and that a new trial be granted to consider Seth's reimbursement claims. In his motion, Seth contended that the corrected calculations resulted in the community property agreement not being lesionary. Seth's motion was heard on
June 14, 2022. The trial court granted Seth's motion and signed a judgment on June 23, 2022, vacating the May 16, 2022 judgment and dismissing Danielle's petition to rescind and first amending and supplemental petition to amend.
On June 28, 2022, Danielle filed a "Motion for New Trial, or in Alternative, Amendment of Judgment" contending that the June 23,2022 judgment was the result of calculation errors. In her motion, Danielle contended that there were two issues with the trial court's original calculation and that Seth's motion for new trial only cited one of the calculation issues. Danielle's motion for new trial was heard on July 19, 2022. On February 3, 2023, the trial court signed a judgment vacating the June 23, 2022 judgment, rendering judgment in favor of Danielle and against Seth, and rescinding the community property agreement on the grounds of lesion. It is from this February 3, 2023 judgment that Seth appeals, contending that the community property agreement that was made a judgment of the court was a transaction and compromise and had the effect of res judicata not subject to being set aside by lesion under La. Civ. Code art. 814. Seth also contends that the trial court erred in vacating the judgment it rendered on Seth's motion for new trial because Danielle's motion for new trial was untimely.
Outcome: Appeal Dismissed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: