Paul Simmons Versus Monique Lafontaine Simmons

PAUL SIMMONS NO. 24-CA-162

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

MONIQUE LAFONTAINE SIMMONS COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 785-088, DIVISION "A"
HONORABLE RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

January 29, 2025

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Fredericka Homberg Wicker,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

AFFIRMED
SUS
FHW
MEJ

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE,
PAUL SIMMONS
Marc D. Winsberg
Jonathan D. Gamble

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,
MONIQUE LAFONTAINE
Monique M. Lafontaine

SCHLEGEL, J.

Appellant, Monique Lafontaine Simmons (“Ms. Lafontaine”), appeals the

judgment of December 27, 2023, in which the district court adopted the

recommendations of the special master regarding the partition of community

property, interlocutory rulings regarding the testimony of the special master, and

Ms. Lafontaine’s objections to prior rulings by the domestic commissioner. For

the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s rulings.

Factual and Procedural History

This case has a long and contentious history. We highlight the pleadings

relevant to this appeal as follows.

Mr. Simmons and Ms. Lafontaine were married on June 26, 2011, and

established their matrimonial domicile in Jefferson Parish. The parties never

entered into a matrimonial agreement to modify or terminate the legal regime. On

June 25, 2018, Mr. Simmons filed a petition for divorce, requesting a divorce

under La. C.C. art. 102 and a partition of the community of acquets and gains. On

March 8, 2019, Mr. Simmons was granted a judgment of divorce under La. C.C.

art. 102, thereby terminating the community regime retroactively to June 25, 2018,

pursuant to La. C.C. art. 159.

In the ensuing years, the parties litigated numerous preliminary and ancillary

matters at issue in this appeal. Specifically, on December 9, 2020, Mr. Simmons

filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued to Mike Keim and for a

protective order (the “motion to quash”), seeking to quash a subpoena to an

accountant for several businesses that Mr. Simmons had acquired an interest in

prior to the marriage. On March 16, 2021, Ms. Lafontaine filed a motion to

compel, asserting that Mr. Simmons failed to respond to discovery regarding the

partition. On July 29, 2021, Ms. Lafontaine filed an expedited motion for an

advancement of community property funds (the “motion for advancement”).

24-CA-162 1

On February 1, 2022, the parties appeared before the domestic commissioner

on the above matters, as well as the Petition for Protection from Abuse filed by Mr.

Simmons.1 On that day, the domestic commissioner ruled as follows: he issued a

protective order against Ms. Lafontaine on Mr. Simmons’ behalf; granted in part

and denied in part Ms. Lafontaine’s motion to quash; denied Ms. Lafontaine’s

motion to compel; and denied Ms. Lafontaine’s motion for advancement. Ms.

Lafontaine timely objected to these rulings on February 8, 2022.

Thereafter, on March 24, 2022, Ms. Lafontaine filed an ex parte motion for

an expedited hearing for an immediate advance of her community property funds

needed for representation and defense (the “second motion for advancement”). On

April 5, 2022, Mr. Simmons filed a rule for contempt, for attorney’s fees and court

costs, and motion to modify protective order (the “Rule for Contempt and Motion

to Modify”), requesting that the protective order be extended because Ms.

Lafontaine had allegedly violated the protective order numerous times.

On May 11, 2022, the parties appeared before the trial court on Ms.

Lafontaine’s objections to the domestic commissioner’s rulings on the motion to

quash, motion to compel, and motion for advancement, as well as Ms. Lafontaine’s

second motion for advancement and Mr. Simmons’ rule for contempt. At this

hearing, the parties agreed to the appointment of a special master pursuant to La.

R.S. 13:4165 to address these issues. The parties also agreed that the special

master would address the partition of community property. Additionally, the trial

court granted Mr. Simmons’ request to modify the protective order, extending it

through May 11, 2023.

1
Mr. Simmons filed several petitions for protection from abuse against Ms. Lafontaine beginning on
January 15, 2020. The Domestic Commissioner granted them, which resulted in at least fifteen Orders of
Protection being granted in favor of Mr. Simmons for periods of a few months to the final protective
order for a period of a year (from May 11, 2022 through May 10, 2023).

24-CA-162 2

On June 1, 2022, the trial court signed the judgment appointing Frank P.

Tranchina, Jr. as special master pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165, to make findings and

recommendations to the court regarding several matters: (1) Mr. Simmons’ rule for

contempt; (2) the determination, valuation and allocation of the parties’ community

assets, liabilities and reimbursement claims; (3) Ms. Lafontaine’s second motion

for advancement and discovery, motions and ancillary issues related thereto; and

(4) Ms. Lafontaine’s objections to the domestic commissioner’s February 1, 2022

rulings regarding her motion to quash, motion to compel, and motion for

advancement (the “judgment appointing special master”). The judgment

appointing special master further provided that the special master:

. . . shall address and make recommendations on the pending issues as timely
as possible, by establishing a case management schedule which allows
sufficient time and establishment of cut-off dates for discovery, and
deadlines for obtaining stipulations, for meeting with the experts, for
submission by the parties, and/or any other action necessary to fulfill their
duties as Special Master. Any such cut-off dates and deadlines shall be
considered an Order of this Court, unless objected to by the filing of a rule to
show cause within seven (7) days of the filing of the Special Master’s
recommendation.

The judgment also stated, “that the Court or any party [could] request that the

Special Master testify as to his report to the Court.”

On June 20, 2022, the parties appeared before the special master on Ms.

Lafontaine’s objection to the commissioner’s denial of her motion for

advancement, as well as her second motion for advancement. On June 23, 2022,

the special master issued his Judgment and Reasons (the “June 23, 2022

Judgment”), after giving Ms. Lafontaine another opportunity to support her motion

for advancement during a three-hour trial on Ms. Lafontaine’s objections to the

commissioner’s rulings. The special master’s June 23, 2022 Judgment

recommended that Ms. Lafontaine’s requests be denied because Ms. Lafontaine

had not presented sufficient evidence on February 1, 2022 before the domestic

commissioner. The special master noted that Ms. Lafontaine lacked sufficient

24-CA-162 3

evidence to show adequate liquid community assets not offset by her liabilities and

reimbursement claims to warrant an advance of community property. Ms.

Lafontaine did not object to these findings and recommendations.

On June 28, 2022, the parties were scheduled to appear before the special

master for a hearing on Ms. Lafontaine’s objections to the February 1, 2022 ruling

on her motion to compel and Mr. Simmons’ motion to quash. But on June 27,

2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a motion to continue the hearing, stating that she had

located a new attorney to serve as co-counsel and required additional time to

prepare for the hearing. The motion to continue was granted. However, a Zoom

status conference was held on June 28, 2022 with Ms. Lafontaine, Mr. Simmons,

through counsel, and the special master appearing, at which time the special master

ordered both parties to file their initial sworn detailed descriptive lists within 45

days of June 29, 2022, or no later than August 15, 2022.

On August 12, 2022, Mr. Simmons filed his sworn detailed descriptive list.

Ms. Lafontaine did not file a sworn detailed descriptive list by the August 15, 2022

deadline. Accordingly, on August 17, 2022, Mr. Simmons filed a rule to show

cause why his sworn detailed descriptive list should not be deemed to constitute a

judicial determination of community assets and liabilities (the “rule to show

cause”).

On September 2, 2022, the parties appeared before the special master on the

rule to show cause. Prior to the special master rendering a recommendation, the

parties entered into a consent judgment, which was read into the record before the

special master, reduced to writing, signed by the parties, and then subsequently

signed by trial court on September 6, 2022. The consent judgment ordered Ms.

Lafontaine to file her detailed descriptive list no later than September 7, 2022. The

consent judgment further provided that if Ms. Lafontaine failed to file her list by

this deadline, Mr. Simmons’ sworn detailed descriptive list would be deemed a

24-CA-162 4

judicial determination of the parties’ community assets and liabilities under La.

R.S. 9:2801(A)(l)(a). After the consent judgment was read into the record and

signed by the parties, the special master conducted a scheduling conference with

the parties and counsel, and scheduled a trial date for November 16, 2022, along

with additional deadlines.

Ms. Lafontaine failed to file a detailed descriptive list by the September 7,

2022 deadline. Consequently, pursuant to the consent judgment, Mr. Simmons’

detailed descriptive list was deemed a judicial determination of the parties’

community assets and liabilities.

On September 13, 2022, the special master issued the scheduling order that

had been discussed at the September 2, 2022 conference. A filed copy of the

scheduling order was emailed to both parties on September 13, 2022 and

subsequently personally served by the sheriff upon Ms. Lafontaine on October 6,

2022 and upon Mr. Simmons, through counsel, on October 7, 2022. Neither party

filed an objection to the Special Master’s scheduling order.

The scheduling order of September 13, 2022 provided that “[a] Joint

[Detailed Descriptive] List will be submitted to the Special Master and filed into

the Court record no later than November 8, 2022. Counsel for Mr. Simmons will

ensure that the Joint List is timely filed.” On November 8, 2022, Mr. Simmons

filed the joint detailed descriptive list, which was not signed by Ms. Lafontaine.

The affidavit of Mr. Simmons’ counsel, filed contemporaneously with the joint

detailed descriptive list, indicated that counsel had attempted to obtain Ms.

Lafontaine’s positions for incorporation into the list, but she failed to respond.

Shortly before the trial scheduled for November 16, 2022 before the special

master, Ms. Lafontaine filed an ex parte emergency motion for stay with the

Louisiana Supreme Court, requesting a stay of the proceedings. The Louisiana

Supreme Court denied this request on November 16, 2022 and the parties appeared

24-CA-162 5

before the special master for the trial on the final partition. Ms. Lafontaine orally

requested a continuance of the partition trial again, which was denied by the

special master.

The special master proceeded with the trial on the final partition on

November 16, 2022. The joint detailed descriptive list was admitted into evidence.

Both parties were afforded the opportunity to present their case on each item that

was identified on the joint detailed descriptive list. The special master heard the

testimony of Mr. Simmons, as well as his financial expert, Lindsey Daugherty,

CPA. Ms. Lafontaine failed to present any evidence, whether in support of her

claims or in rebuttal of any claims made by Mr. Simmons.

On December 15, 2022, the special master filed his opinion and proposed

judgment (“the special master opinion”) regarding the valuation and allocation of

the community assets, liabilities, and reimbursement claims. In pertinent part, the

special master opinion and proposed judgment provided that each party be

allocated the assets and liabilities identified on the joint detailed descriptive list in

his or her name or in their possession and that, after considering the allocation of

assets and liabilities and reimbursement claims, Ms. Lafontaine owed Mr.

Simmons an equalizing payment of $28,183. The special master served notice of

the opinion in accordance with La. R.S. 13:4165(C)(2) upon Mr. Simmons,

through his counsel of record, and Ms. Lafontaine by email. No objections were

filed to the special master opinion and proposed judgment.

On February 3, 2023, Mr. Simmons filed a motion to adopt special master

opinion and proposed judgment, asking the trial court to adopt the special master

opinion in its entirety pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165(C)(3). The motion to adopt

was initially set for hearing on March 14, 2023, but was continued three times:

first, at Mr. Simmons’ request due to the unavailability of his counsel; next, by Ms.

Lafontaine, who requested additional time to allow new counsel to prepare for the

24-CA-162 6

hearing;2 and finally, on the trial court’s own motion due to a scheduling conflict.

The hearing on the motion to adopt was eventually held on August 28, 2023.

On August 21, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a “First Supplemental Opposition

to the Court Rendering the Special Master Proposed Judgment Dated December

15, 2022.” This opposition asserted that the record of the November 16, 2022 trial

upon which the special master opinion was based was deficient because the court

reporter’s transcript of the partition trial did not include copies of the exhibits

introduced into evidence.

In an effort to resolve this issue, at the August 28, 2023 hearing on the

motion to adopt, the trial court left the matter open and ordered Mr. Simmons to

supplement the record with the exhibits introduced at the August 28, 2023 hearing

within fifteen days with an affidavit from the special master that identified the

transcripts and exhibits the special master had relied upon in rendering the

December 15, 2022 opinion and the June 23, 2022 Judgment. The transcripts and

exhibits relevant to the June 23, 2022 Judgment were included; both parties

presented evidence at that hearing regarding the classification of assets that Ms.

Lafontaine claimed to be community property.

On September 5, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed an objection to the special

master testifying and an ex parte motion for an LSA-C.E. 519 contradictory

hearing and ex parte motion for expedited consideration (“objection to special

master testifying”). Ms. Lafontaine asserted that the special master, as a judge,

was prohibited from testifying, and requested a contradictory hearing, per La. C.E.

art. 519, to determine whether the special master was permitted to testify. The

contradictory hearing was set for October 23, 2023.

2
The order admitting Jim Mueller and Shane Landers of the Texas firm of Verner Brumley-Mueller
Parker pro hac vice as lead counsel for Ms. Lafontaine was signed on May 24, 2023.

24-CA-162 7

In accordance with the trial court’s orders at the August 28, 2023 hearing, on

September 12, 2023, Mr. Simmons filed two affidavits: an affidavit of special

master regarding the November 16, 2022 trial, and an affidavit of special master

regarding the June 20, 2022 hearing (collectively the “affidavits”). To ensure

completion of the affidavits by the deadline, counsel for Mr. Simmons drafted the

affidavits and circulated them to counsel for Ms. Lafontaine and the special master

on September 9, 2023. The special master reviewed the affidavits and attachments,

found that they comported with what he relied upon, and signed the affidavits.

On October 16, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a motion in limine to exclude the

special master’s affidavits and ex parte motion for expedited consideration (the

“motion in limine”). She argued that the affidavits should be excluded because

they were inadmissible hearsay; the special master was prohibited from testifying;

and the affidavit regarding the exhibits and transcripts related to the June 20, 2022

hearing was irrelevant because the June 20, 2022 hearing was not part of the

partition proceedings.

The hearing on Ms. Lafontaine’s objection to special master testifying and

motion in limine began on October 23, 2023 before the trial court but Ms.

Lafontaine was not able to complete her cross-examination of the special master.

So, the parties selected a new date of November 20, 2023 to complete the hearing.

On October 30, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine's attorneys filed an expedited motion

to withdraw, which was also set for hearing on November 20, 2023.

On November 13, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a notice of intent to take

supervisory writs, an ex parte motion to set return date, and an ex parte motion for

stay of the trial court’s interlocutory rulings. The trial court did not rule on the

request for a stay. On November 18, 2024, this Court denied the writ on the basis

that the October 23, 2023 hearing had yet to be completed, and denied the stay as

the trial court had not yet ruled on it.

24-CA-162 8

On November 18, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a motion to continue the

November 20, 2023 hearing and requested additional time to prepare for her cross-

examination of the special master. The parties appeared before the trial court for a

final time on November 20, 2023. After a contradictory hearing, the trial court

granted the expedited motion to withdraw filed by Ms. Lafontaine’s attorneys,

denied Ms. Lafontaine’s request for a continuance, and ordered that she complete

her cross-examination of the special master regarding the affidavits. The trial court

took Mr. Simmons’ motion to adopt special master opinion under advisement.

On December 27, 2023, the trial court issued its judgment and reasons: (1)

granting Ms. Lafontaine’s motion for an La. C.E. art. 519 contradictory hearing;

(2) denying Ms. Lafontaine’s objection to special master testifying; (3) finding that

Ms. Lafontaine’s objection to the special master testifying and the motion in limine

to exclude the special master’s affidavit was moot; (4) granting Mr. Simmons’

motion to adopt special master opinion and proposed judgment of December 15,

2022; and (5) adopting the December 15, 2022 special master opinion and

proposed judgment as a judgment of the court. The judgment of December 27,

2023 further itemized the manner in which the property was to be divided.

On February 23, 2024, Ms. Lafontaine filed a timely notice of and motion

for devolutive appeal from the judgment of December 27, 2023. This request was

granted, and the district court set a return date of March 11, 2024, for the

devolutive appeal. After a brief suspension of briefing deadlines while the matter

was remanded to the trial court for the adjudication of a rule to challenge Ms.

Lafontaine’s in forma pauperis status, the record was supplemented and briefed.

Jurisdiction

Before considering the merits in any appeal, appellate courts have the duty

to determine sua sponte whether subject matter jurisdiction exists. Succession of

Smith, 22-565 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/24/23), 367 So.3d 800, 803. This Court cannot

24-CA-162 9

determine the merits of an appeal unless our appellate court jurisdiction is properly

invoked by a valid final judgment.

Ms. Lafontaine refers to applications for supervisory writs that she has

previously filed and argues that this Court is exercising supervisory jurisdiction

over the instant matter.

However, the trial court rendered a final judgment on December 27, 2023

after Ms. Lafontaine’s previously filed applications for supervisory writs were

already ruled upon by this Court. Ms. Lafontaine timely filed a notice of and

motion for devolutive appeal from the judgment of December 27, 2023, which was

granted by the district court on February 25, 2024. Based on the facts and

procedural status of the case, Ms. Lafontaine is entitled to an appeal as of right on

the judgment of December 27, 2023 under La. C.C.P. art. 2083.

Law and Analysis

1. Standard of Review

In civil cases, the appropriate standard for appellate review of factual

determinations is the manifest error / clearly wrong standard, which precludes the

setting aside of a district court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong

in light of the record reviewed in its entirety. Harvey Canal Ltd. P’ship v. Nat’l

Response Restoration Corp., 23-195 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/31/24), 380 So.3d 683, 686.

2. Assignments of Error Related to the December 27, 2023 Judgment

Ms. Lafontaine asserts the following assignments of error that are

specifically related to the judgment of December 27, 2023:

 No. 1 – District court erred in rendering the December 27, 2023
judgment.

 No. 2 – District court erred in admitting the special master’s
testimony.

 No. 3 – District court erred in admitting the special master’s
affidavits.

24-CA-162 10

 No. 4 – District court erred in limiting Ms. Lafontaine’s cross
examination of, and request to depose, the special master.

 No. 5 – District court erred in granting Mr. Simmons’ motion to
adopt the special master’s “Opinion & Proposed Judgment.”

The Louisiana statute on special masters is contained in La. R.S. 13:4165,

and provides in pertinent part in Section C:

C. (1) The court may order the master to prepare a report upon the
matters submitted to him and, if in the course of his duties he is required to
make findings of facts or conclusions of law, the order may further require
that the master include in his report information with respect to such
findings or conclusions.

(2) The report shall be filed with the clerk of court and notice of such
filing shall be served upon all parties.

(3) Within ten days after being served with notice of the filing of the
report, any party may file a written objection thereto. After a contradictory
hearing, the court may adopt the report, modify it, reject it in whole or in
part, receive further evidence, or recommit it with instructions. If no timely
objection is filed, the court shall adopt the report as submitted, unless clearly
erroneous.

La. R.S. 13:4165(C).

As discussed above, Ms. Lafontaine consented to the appointment of the

special master pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165 at a hearing on May 11, 2022. The

judgment appointing the special master of June 1, 2022, itemized the matters on

which the special master would make findings and recommendations, and

specifically provided that the special master would establish a case management

schedule, which included discovery cut-offs. Further, the judgment appointing

special master provided that the cut-off dates and deadlines would be an order of

the court unless objected to by the filing of an order to show cause within seven

days.

On June 23, 2022, the special master issued a judgment, which

recommended that Ms. Lafontaine’s requests for advancement be denied because

she had not presented sufficient evidence on February 1, 2022 before the domestic

commissioner. Ms. Lafontaine did not object.

24-CA-162 11

At the status conference on June 28, 2022, the special master ordered the

parties to file their initial sworn detailed descriptive lists within 45 days or by

August 15, 2022. Mr. Simmons timely filed a sworn detailed descriptive list on

August 12, 2022. Ms. Lafontaine failed to file her own sworn detailed descriptive

list by August 15, 2022 and did not object to Mr. Simmons’ detailed descriptive

list.

Thus, Mr. Simmons filed a rule to show cause why his sworn detailed

descriptive list should not be deemed to constitute a judicial determination of

community assets and liability on August 17, 2022. His rule to show cause was set

for September 2, 2022.

At the hearing on September 2, 2022, the parties entered into a consent

judgment, granting Ms. Lafontaine an extension until September 7, 2022 to file her

detailed descriptive list. However, she failed to comply with this extension, which

was deemed a judicial determination of the parties’ community assets and

liabilities in accordance with the consent judgment.

The final partition trial began on November 16, 2022 before the special

master. Ms. Lafontaine did not call any witness or present any evidence. The

special master’s opinion and proposed judgment was issued on December 15,

2022. Ms. Lafontaine did not file an objection within ten days of being served.

It was only on August 21, 2023, prior to the August 28, 2023 hearing on Mr.

Simmons’ motion to adopt the report of the special master, that she filed an

opposition asserting the special master opinion and judgment were deficient

because the transcript of the partition trial had not included copies of the exhibits

introduced into evidence.

In an effort to alleviate this concern, the trial court left the matter open so

that Mr. Simmons could supplement the record with an affidavit from the special

master listing the transcripts and exhibits that he relied upon in rendering his

24-CA-162 12

opinion of December 15, 2022. On October 16, 2023, Ms. Lafontaine filed a

motion in limine to exclude the special master’s affidavits. The trial court

permitted Ms. Lafontaine to cross-examine the special master at the hearing on

October 23, 2023, and extended the hearing until November 20, 2023, in order to

give her time to complete her cross-examination.

After the hearing on November 20, 2023, the trial court took the matter

under advisement. After careful consideration, the trial court adopted the special

master’s opinion and judgment as its own on December 27, 2023.

Upon review, we find that Ms. Lafontaine’s assignments of error Nos. 1-5

are without merit. The consent judgment appointing the special master that Ms.

Simmons signed clearly states that “the Court or any party can request that the

Special Master testify as to his report to the Court.” Consequently, the district

court was permitted to hear testimony from and consider affidavits by the special

master pursuant to the consent judgment appointing the special master.

The trial court is afforded great discretion in evidentiary rulings, and absent

a clear abuse of that discretion, rulings regarding the relevancy and admissibility of

evidence will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Garrison, 19-62 (La. App. 5 Cir.

4/23/20), 297 So.3d 190, 206, writ denied, 20-547 (La. 9/23/20), 301 So.3d 1190;

State v. Cox, 17-508 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 239 So.3d 465, 473, writ denied,

18-455 (La. 1/14/19), 261 So.3d 782. Admitting the affidavits of the special

master was within the trial court’s great discretion and was not an abuse of that

discretion. Furthermore, the special master was only called in an effort to allay

Ms. Lafontaine’s concerns that the court did not have the evidence that the special

master had relied upon in forming his opinion.

Additionally, Ms. Lafontaine failed to object to the special master’s

recommendation that her requests for advancement be denied, failed to file her

own detailed descriptive list, and most importantly, failed to object to the special

24-CA-162 13

master’s opinion and proposed judgment of December 15, 2022 within ten days of

being served. “If no timely objection is filed, the court shall adopt the report as

submitted, unless clearly erroneous.” La. R.S. 13:4165(C).

Thus, we cannot say that the district court’s adoption of the special master

opinion and proposed judgment was clearly erroneous. The transcripts of the

proceedings and the exhibits introduced at the hearing were made part of the

record, available for the trial court’s review and carefully considered as evidenced

by the trial court’s detailed reasons for judgment.

Based upon the above finding, the Court finds that the remaining

assignments of error are moot. Nevertheless, for completeness, we review the

remaining assignments of error made by Ms. Lafontaine below.

3. Abandoned Assignments of Error

All assignments of error and issues for review must be briefed and the

appellate court may consider as abandoned any assigned error of issue for review

that has not been briefed. Uniform Rules – Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4(B)(4);

Alonso v. Admin. Patient’s Comp. Fund, 20-211 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/30/20), 310

So.3d 297, 301, writ denied, 21-125 (La. 2/9/21), 310 So.3d 177.

Ms. Lafontaine did not brief the following assignments of error, which are

accordingly deemed abandoned:

 No. 6 – The domestic commissioner erred in denying Ms.
Lafontaine’s motions to compel.

 No. 7 – The Special Master erred by never hearing Ms.
Lafontaine’s motions to compel and not enforcing his own “Discovery
Order”.

 No. 9 – The Special Master and district court judge erred by
ignoring Ms. Lafontaine’s repeated pleas for discovery.

 No. 10 – Domestic Commissioner, Special Master, and district
court erred by denying continuances to Ms. Lafontaine on December 1,
2021; November 16, 2022, and November 20, 2023.

24-CA-162 14

 No. 12 – District court erred by never hearing Ms. Lafontaine’s
Motions to Advance Community for Representation and Defense.

 No. 15 – District court erred by permitting Ms. Lafontaine’s
counsel to withdraw on October 25, 2021, January 19, 2022, and November
20, 2023.

 No. 16 – District court judge erred by signing and filing the
consent judgment dated September 2, 2022.

 No. 21 – It was error to impose costs on Ms. Lafontaine as an in
forma pauperis party.

 No. 22 – It was error to issue the protective orders of February 1,
2022 and May 11, 2022.

 No. 23 – It was error to hold Ms. Lafontaine in contempt.

4. Assignments of Error Related to Interlocutory Rulings that are Moot

Although an interlocutory judgment is generally not appealable, an

interlocutory judgment is subject to review on appeal when an appealable

judgment has been rendered in the case. Jones v. ABC Ins. Co., 19-141 (La. App. 5

Cir. 1/29/20), 290 So.3d 317, 324. When an unrestricted appeal is taken from a

final judgment, the appellant is entitled to a review of all adverse interlocutory

rulings prejudicial to him, in addition to the review of the correctness of the final

judgment from which the party has taken the appeal. Id.

It is well settled, however, that courts should not decide abstract,

hypothetical or moot controversies, or render advisory opinions with respect to

such controversies. Balluff v. Riverside Indoor Soccer II, L.L.C., 07-780 (La. App.

5 Cir. 3/11/08), 982 So.2d 199, 201, citing CITGO Petroleum Co. v. Louisiana

Public Service Cn, 04–0914 (La. 3/2/05), 898 So.2d 291.

Ms. Lafontaine asserts assignment of error No. 8 relating to her motion to

compel, and assignments of error No. 11, 13, and 14 relating to her motions for

advancement of community property funds as follows:

 No. 8 – District court erred by summarily dismissing Ms.
Lafontaine’s motion to compel as “moot.”

24-CA-162 15

 No. 11 – The domestic commissioner and special master erred by
denying Ms. Lafontaine’s Motions to Advance her Community [Funds] for
Representation and Defense.

 No. 13 – The special master erred by never setting or hearing Ms.
Lafontaine’s motion to reconsider motion for an advance.

 No. 14 – District court judge erred by summarily dismissing Ms.
Lafontaine’s motions for advance as “moot” in the December 27, 2023
judgment.

Ms. Lafontaine’s motion to compel is moot. As discussed above, on June

27, 2022, Ms. Lafontaine filed a motion to continue her motion to compel and

requested that the hearing on her objection to the domestic commissioner’s ruling

be continued. From the time of the filing of her motion to continue until the

November 16, 2022 trial, Ms. Lafontaine did not seek to reset her objection to the

denial of her motion to compel. It was Ms. Lafontaine’s responsibility to reset the

matter prior to the hearing on the merits of the partition. Consequently, any

objections by Ms. Lafontaine became moot upon the special master’s

recommendation on the partition of community property.

The denial of requests for advances of community property were also

interlocutory rulings that were mooted by the entry of the final judgment of

December 27, 2023.

5. Assignments of Error Related to the Scheduling Order

Ms. Lafontaine asserts the following assignments of error related to the

scheduling order of September 13, 2022 issued by the special master:

 No. 17 – Special master erred in confecting and filing the
scheduling order.

 No. 18 – District court erred in enforcing and relying upon the
scheduling order.

Ms. Lafontaine argues that the special master’s decision to confect a

scheduling order at the September 2, 2022 hearing was in violation of the

mandatory procedures contained in La. R.S. 9:2801, as neither party had moved for

24-CA-162 16

a scheduling order. Ms. Lafontaine further claims that she refused to sign the

scheduling order and objected “in writing” to the district court.

Ms. Lafontaine’s arguments are unavailing. The district court appointed the

special master on June 1, 2022 in accordance with an agreement made by the

parties on May 11, 2022 and pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4165. And the consent

judgment specifically gave the special master the authority to establish cut-off

dates for discovery. The consent judgment further provided that any such cut-off

dates shall be considered an order of the court unless objected to by the filing of a

rule to show cause within seven days of the special master’s recommendation.

Thus, the scheduling order at issue, drafted by the special master and filed

with the district court on September 13, 2022, was within the special master’s

authority and did not require a signature by Ms. Lafontaine. She could have filed

an objection to the scheduling order pursuant to the judgment of appointment of

June 1, 2022, but she did not do so.

6. Assignments of Error Related to Ms. Lafontaine’s status as a litigant

Ms. Lafontaine asserts the following assignments of error related to her

status as a litigant:

 No. 19 – Appellant has not been held to the proper standard as a
pro se litigant attorney forced to represent herself.

 No. 20 – Appellant was denied rights under the Americans With
Disabilities Act.

Ms. Lafontaine contends that the special master and district court repeatedly made

explicit comments and based rulings upon her being an attorney and not a pro se

litigant or disabled attorney forced to represent herself.

A pro se petitioner is not to be denied access to the courts for review of his

case on the merits by the overzealous application of form and pleading

requirements or hyper-technical interpretations of court rules. Benoit v. Guerin,

24-CA-162 17

22-547 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1/18/23), 357 So.3d 434, 441, writ denied, 23-250 (La.

6/7/23), 361 So.3d 966.

There is no indication that Ms. Lafontaine was denied access to the court on

hyper-technical interpretations of court rules. She has had ample access to the

courts throughout these proceedings. The trial court, special master, and Mr.

Simmons accommodated many of her requests for continuances. In addition, Ms.

Lafontaine has been represented by attorneys at various times throughout this

litigation. Finally, the record contains no evidence of health issues, only argument

by Ms. Lafontaine. These assignments of error are without merit.

7. General Assignments of Error

Ms. Lafontaine asserts assignments of error Nos. 24 and 25 as follows:

 No. 24 – Assignments of error inherent in the issues of law.

 No. 25 – Assignments of error asserted in the March 1, 2024 and
November 16, 2023 Applications.

These assignments of error are not stated with specificity. The lack of

specificity as to what errors she is asserting precludes appellate review of these

assignments. See State v. Clifton, 17-538 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/23/18), 248 So.3d 691,

701-02 (General allegations and lack of specificity of assigned errors precludes

appellate review of those assignments of error.)

Conclusion

For these reasons, we find that the trial court was not clearly wrong in

granting Mr. Simmons’ motion to adopt the special master’s opinion and proposed

judgment rendered on December 15, 2022, and in adopting the special master’s

opinion and proposed judgment filed on December 15, 2022. The trial court’s

judgment of December 27, 2023 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

24-CA-162 18

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL 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
JANUARY 29, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-CA-162
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HON. RAYMOND S. STEIB, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
MARC D. WINSBERG (APPELLEE)

MAILED
JONATHAN D. GAMBLE (APPELLEE) MONIQUE M. LAFONTAINE (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEY AT LAW ATTORNEY AT LAW
650 POYDRAS STREET C/O HYATT PLACE NORTH DALLAS
SUITE 2050 5229 SPRING VALLEY ROAD
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 SUITE 623
DALLAS, TX 75254