Robert Johnson v. Delia Navarrette

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ROBERT JOHNSON NO. 2019 CW 0634
PAGE 1 OF 2)

VERSUS

DELIA NAVARRETE JULY 10, 2020

In Re: Delia Navarrete, applying for supervisory writs, 23rd
Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No.
123597.

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McDONALD, McCLENDON, WELCH, AND

HOLDRIDGE, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED WITH ORDER. The district court' s ruling which
denied the exception of no cause of action filed by Delia
Navarrete is reversed. The factual allegations set forth in the
Rule to Modify Court Form Stipulation are insufficient to meet

the burden for modification of a consent custody decree to prove
a material change in circumstances that affects the welfare of

the children, and that the proposed modification would be in the
best interest of the children. Richard v. Richard, 2009- 0299
La. App. 1st Cir. 6/ 12/ 09), 20 So. 3d 1061, 1066. We note that

the trial court referred to the prior custody decree as a

court -form stipulation", inferring that it differed from a

judgment. We disagree. The document in question contains the
stipulations of the parties as to custody and visitation, the
caption of the case, the signatures of both parties and their
counsel, as well as the signature of the trial court. See

Catalanotto v. Catalanotto, 2014- 0708 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
12/ 10/ 14), 168 So. 3d 463, 466. Therefore, the exception of no

cause of action is granted, and the claims of Robert Johnson

asserted in the Rule to Modify Court Form Stipulation are

dismissed. However, we remand the matter to the district court

with instructions to allow Robert Johnson the opportunity to

amend his pleadings, if he can, within a delay deemed reasonable
by the district court. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 934.

VGW
JMM
PMc

Welch, J., concurs in the result only.

Holdridge, J., concurs in the result to allow Mr. Johnson
to amend his petition. The signed stipulation form is an

interim order of the court. The interim order is not a consent

decree nor is it a stipulated final judgment. It is an

interlocutory judgment which may be changed or modified by the
trial court at any time. See e. g. Saizan v. Pointe Coupee
Parish School Board, 2010- 0757 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 29/ 10), 49
So. 3d 559, 563, writ denied, 2010- 2599 ( La. 1/ 14/ 11), 52 So. 3d
905 (". . . an interlocutory judgment, which the trial court may
change at any time up to final judgment.") The trial court was

correct in referring to the document as a ANcourt- form
stipulation" since the parties and the judge understood that
this was an interim order ( i. e. interlocutory judgment) that the

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2019 CW 0634

PAGE 2 OF 2)

parties were entering into until such time as they could resolve
all of their differences in a final consent judgment or after a

trial on the merits.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT