Andrew Richard Early, III v. The Unopened Succession of Lolalisa Clark

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

ANDREW RICHARD EARLY, IIT NO. 2025 CW 1144
VERSUS
THE UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF MARCH 23, 2026

LOLALISA CLARK

In Re: Andrew Richard Early, III, applying for supervisory
writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East
Baton Rouge, No. 731932.

BEFORE: McCLENDON, C.J., LANIER, WOLFE, HESTER AND BALFOUR, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The district court’s
May 6, 2025 judgment is vacated in part. To the extent the district
court found the succession of Katie King was a necessary party,
the judgment is vacated. A party is indispensable only when the
facts clearly establish that no complete and equitable
adjudication of the controversy can be made in his absence. The
burden of proving an exception is on the party asserting it. Carter
v. Baton Rouge City~-Par. Employees' Ret. Sys., 612 So.2d 765, 767
(La. App. Ist Cir. 1992). Defendant failed to introduce evidence
to prove the grounds of its exception as to the succession of Katie
King. The writ is denied in part as to the Unopened Succession of
Lolalisa Clark. The succession representative of that succession
is necessary to a complete adjudication of the claims asserted
herein. The succession representative appointed by a court of
this state is the proper defendant in an action to enforce an
obligation of the deceased or of his succession, while the latter
is under administration. La. Code Civ. P. art. 734. Louisiana
Code of Civil Procedure art. 5091(A) (1) (c) provides that the court
shall appoint an attorney to represent the defendant on petition
or ex parte written motion of the plaintiff when the defendant is
deceased and no succession representative has been appointed.
Subsection (B) further provides for the limited purpose of any
such action or proceeding, the appointed attorney at law shall be
the proper representative of the succession of any such decedent
to the same extent as if he were the regularly appointed and duly
qualified administrator or executor in such decedent's succession.

EW

CHH
Balfour, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. JI concur
in vacating the district court’s May 6, 2025 judgment as to the
succession of Katie King. However, I dissent from the denial of

the writ in part as to the Unopened Succession of Lolalisa Clark.
The burden of proving an exception is on the party asserting it.
Carter v. Baton Rouge City-Par. Employees' Ret. Sys., 612 So.2d
765, 767 (La. App. lst Cir. 1992). Defendant failed to introduce
evidence to prove the grounds of its exception.

McClendon, C.J. and Lanier, J., concur in part and dissent in
part and would deny the writ in its entirety.

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
\

FOR THE COURT