State of Louisiana O/B/O T. J. & T. J. Minor Children of Tomika Clofer Versus Dexter Johnson

STATE OF LOUISIANA O/B/O T. J. & T. J. NO. 20-CA-154
MINOR CHILDREN OF TOMIKA CLOFER
FIFTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS
COURT OF APPEAL
DEXTER JOHNSON
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 53,386, DIVISION "B"
HONORABLE KIRK A. VAUGHN, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE, JUDGE
PRESIDING

December 16, 2020

ROBERT A. CHAISSON
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Robert A. Chaisson

AFFIRMED
RAC
JGG
MEJ

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
STATE OF LOUISIANA O/B/O T. J. & T. J. MINOR CHILDREN OF TOMIKA
CLOFER
Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut
Kim Ancona Laborde

DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
DEXTER JOHNSON
In Proper Person

CHAISSON, J.

In this case arising from a petition to nullify an August 6, 2015 child support

judgment, Dexter Johnson appeals the ruling of the trial court sustaining an

exception of res judicata filed by the State of Louisiana, on behalf of the

Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”), resulting in the denial of

his petition to nullify the prior child support judgment. For the reasons set forth

herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On August 6, 2015, the trial court rendered a judgment against Mr. Johnson,

the acknowledged father of twins born on May 24, 2014, ordering him to pay

monthly child support. Mr. Johnson was not present for the August 6, 2015

hearing, although the record indicates he was served via domiciliary service on

June 30, 2015. According to DCFS’s appellate brief, DCFS received payments on

Mr. Johnson’s child support obligation via wage assignment from his employer

from October of 2015 to September of 2018.

In April of 2018, a hearing was set upon motion of DCFS in which Mr.

Johnson sought a modification of his child support obligation.1 In addition to the

DCFS motion for a modification, Mr. Johnson filed - in proper person - a motion to

nullify the August 6, 2015 child support judgment on the basis that he had not been

properly served, and therefore, the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

The trial court heard these motions at a June 28, 2018 hearing at which Mr.

Johnson was present, although he refused to identify himself. At the hearing, Mr.

Johnson was identified by the mother of his children and by the trial judge using a

copy of his driver’s license on file in the court record, at which time Mr. Johnson

fled the courtroom. The judge subsequently rendered judgment dismissing the

1
According to DCFS’s appellate brief, the request for modification of the child support obligation was
filed at the request of Mr. Johnson.

20-CA-154 1

modification request and dismissing Mr. Johnson’s motion to vacate the August 6,

2015 judgment. The record does not reflect that Mr. Johnson sought appellate

review of the trial court’s June 28, 2018 judgment.

On August 13, 2018, Mr. Johnson, through legal counsel, filed a second

motion to nullify the August 6, 2015 child support judgment. Following a hearing

on November 9, 2018, the trial court found that the motion to nullify was “a

duplication of prior motion which should have been appealed when it was ruled

on.” The trial court therefore denied the second motion to nullify the August 6,

2015 child support judgment because it was “seeking the same relief that was

sought and heard on June Twenty-Eighth by Judge Becnel.”2

Mr. Johnson sought supervisory review of the November 9, 2018 judgment,

which this Court denied on January 30, 2019, for failure to provide the

documentation required by Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-5. Mr.

Johnson also sought review by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which also denied his

writ application.

On August 19, 2019, in a third attempt to annul the August 6, 2015 child

support judgment, Mr. Johnson filed a petition to annul the judgment on the same

grounds he had previously urged in his two prior motions to annul the judgment,

i.e., that he had not been served with process as required by law. In response,

DCFS filed an exception of res judicata and also argued that Mr. Johnson’s

petition to annul should be dismissed on the grounds that he had acquiesced in the

judgment pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2003. On October 11, 2019, after a hearing

on the matter, the trial court rendered judgment sustaining DCFS’s exception of res

judicata and denying Mr. Johnson’s petition to annul.3

2
There is no written judgment in the appellate record from the November 9, 2018 hearing; however, the
transcript of this hearing, which contains the trial court’s ruling from the bench, is contained in the
appellate record.
3
Although the written judgment from this hearing indicates that Mr. Johnson’s petition to annul was
“denied,” the transcript of the hearing indicates that after the trial court sustained DCFS’s exception of res
judicata, Mr. Johnson fled the courtroom when the attorney for DCFS alerted the trial court that there was

20-CA-154 2

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Mr. Johnson argues that the trial court erred in sustaining the

exception of res judicata and dismissing his petition for nullity. We disagree.

Ordinarily, the exceptor bears the burden of proof at trial of the peremptory

exception. In re Med. Review Panel of Gerard Lindquist, 18-444 (La. App. 5 Cir.

5/23/19), 274 So.3d 750, 754, writ denied, 19-1034 (La. 10/1/19), 280 So.3d 165.

The party urging the exception of res judicata bears the burden of proving its

essential elements by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Johnson, 19-422

(La. App. 5 Cir. 1/29/20), 290 So.3d 301, 304. Appellate courts review an

exception of res judicata using the de novo standard of review. Id.

Five elements must be satisfied for a finding that a second action is

precluded by res judicata: (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 time of the 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. Id. (citing Chevron

U.S.A., Inc. v. State, 07-2469 (La. 9/8/08), 993 So.2d 187, 194).

A review of the record indicates that on April 3, 2018, Mr. Johnson first

filed his motion to annul the August 6, 2015 child support judgment on the grounds

that he had not been properly served with process as required by law. A hearing on

this motion was held on June 28, 2018, at which time Mr. Johnson, who was

identified in court by the mother of his acknowledged children and by the trial

judge using a copy of the driver’s license Mr. Johnson had previously filed in the

record, had an opportunity to proceed on the merits of his motion and present

evidence in support thereof. Rather than proceed on the merits of his motion, Mr.

a bench warrant for Mr. Johnson’s arrest. The transcript clearly reveals that there was no trial on the
merits of Mr. Johnson’s petition to annul and it appears that the “denial” of his petition was based solely
upon the trial court’s sustaining of DCFS’s exception of res judicata.

20-CA-154 3

Johnson refused to identify himself in court. The trial court therefore rendered a

judgment on June 28, 2018, denying his motion to annul. Mr. Johnson did not file

a motion for new trial, appeal or otherwise seek supervisory review of this

judgment.

Instead, on August 13, 2018, Mr. Johnson, acting through counsel, filed a

second motion to annul the August 6, 2015 child support judgment on the basis

that he had not been served with process as required by law. At the hearing of this

second motion to annul on November 9, 2018, the attorney for DCFS verbally

raised the issue of res judicata as to the motion to annul. Following the hearing,

the trial court found that the motion to nullify was “a duplication of prior motion

which should have been appealed when it was ruled on.” The trial court therefore

denied the second motion to nullify the August 6, 2015 child support judgment

because it was “seeking the same relief that was sought and heard on June Twenty-

Eighth by Judge Becnel.” This Court and the Supreme Court denied Mr. Johnson’s

applications for review of that decision.

Mr. Johnson’s next filed a “Petition for Nullity of Judgment” on August 19,

2019, again urging that the August 6, 2015 judgment be declared a nullity on the

grounds that he had not been properly served with process as required by law.

While styled as a “petition” instead of a “motion,” the arguments are the same as

those set forth in Mr. Johnson’s previous two “motions” to annul.

Upon de novo review, we find that the trial court correctly sustained DCFS’s

exception of res judicata. The record shows that all of the elements necessary for

finding the petition to annul precluded by res judicata are met here: there was a

valid, final judgment on June 28, 2018, between the same parties, Mr. Johnson and

DCFS, over the same subject matter presented in the petition - whether Mr.

Johnson was properly served with service of process prior to the August 6, 2015

judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the October 11, 2019 judgment of the trial court

20-CA-154 4

sustaining DCFS’s exception of res judicata and dismissing Mr. Johnson’s petition

to annul the August 6, 2015 child support judgment.

AFFIRMED

20-CA-154 5

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
DECEMBER 16, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

20-CA-154
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE KIRK A. VAUGHN, JUDGE PRO TEMPORE (DISTRICT JUDGE)
HONORABLE BRIDGET A. DINVAUT
(APPELLEE)

MAILED
DEXTER JOHNSON (APPELLANT) KIM ANCONA LABORDE (APPELLEE)
163 BOUTTE ESTATES DRIVE ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BOUTTE, LA 70039 FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
1342 HIGHWAY 44 RIVER ROAD
RESERVE, LA 70068