William P. Dering v. Kay W. Dering
William P. Dering v. Kay W. Dering, No. 2021-C-00691 (La. Oct. 1, 2021).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Turner v. Busby 883 So. 2d 412
- Duplessis Cadillac, Inc. v. Creative Credit 597 So. 2d 1155
Opinion text
Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 01, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
WILLIAM P. DERING
VS.
KAY W. DERING
No. 2021-C-00691
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: William P. Dering - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Calcasieu, 14th Judicial District Court Number(s) 2020- 114, Court of
Appeal, Third Circuit, Number(s) 20-512;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 01, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JDH
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
JBM
PDG
10/01/2021 "See News Release 039 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."
10/01/21
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-C-00691
W
ILLIAM P. DERING
VS.
KAY W. DERING
O
n Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Calcasieu
PER CURIAM:
Writ granted. This matter presents on an exception of no right of action. The
function of an exception of no right of action is to determine whether plaintiff
belongs to the class of persons to whom the law grants the cause of action asserted
in the petition. La. C.C.P. art. 927; Turner v. Busby, 03–3444, p. 4 (La.9/9/04), 883
So.2d 412, 415. The exception of no right of action serves to question whether the
plaintiff in the particular case is a member of the class of persons that has a legal
interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Id.
We find Mr. Dering has e stablished a right of action. He is a party to the
partition agreement and has a right to assert his interpretation of the agreement .
Moreover, the petition alleges he is an owner in indivision of the former family
home. Given this allegation, Mr. Dering has a real and actual interest in the action
to partition the property. We express no opinion on the merits of this claim. (“ The
exception does not raise the question of the plaintiff's ability to prevail on the merits
nor the question of whether the defendant may have a valid defense.” Duplessis
Cadillac, Inc. v. Creative Credit Services, Inc., 597 So.2d 1155, 1158 (La. App. 1st
Cir.1992)). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.