US Bank National Association Not in Its Individual Capacity but Solely as Trustee of the Nrz Passs-Through Trust Xvi Versus Marc Gerard Barbe A/K/A Marc G. Barbe A/K/A Marc Barbe and Renada a Eastling Babe A/K/A/ Renadad Eastling A/K/A/ Renada A. Barbe A/K/A/ Renada Barbe A/K/A/ Renada Eastling Barbe A/K/A/ Renada E. Barbe

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
State of Louisiana

No. 26-C-319

US BANK NATIONAL

versus

MARC GERARD BARBE, ET AL.

IN RE MARC G. BARBE AND RENADA E. BARBE
APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE
JUNE B. DARENSBURG, DIVISION "C", No. 780-038

September 23, 2026

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Marc E. Johnson

WRIT DENIED; STAY DENIED

Relators, Marc Barbe and Renada Easterling Barbe, appearing in proper
person, seek this Court’s supervisory review of the trial court’s June 17, 2026
judgment, which was rendered after a hearing in the trial court that same day. The
judgment denied relators’:

1) Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel;
2) Motion for Summary Judgment;
3) Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action;
4) Dilatory Exception for Lack of Procedural Capacity;
5) Motion to Strike; and
6) Motion to Show Authority.

Extensive written reasons for this Judgment were issued by the trial court on July 8,
2026.

In a separate Order dated June 17, 2026, the trial court granted plaintiff’s
“Renewed Motion to Substitute Party Plaintiff,” substituting “U.S. Bank Trust
National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity, But Solely As Owner Trustee
for RCF 2 Acquisition Trust” as the correct name of the proper party plaintiff herein.

In their writ application, relators argue that this Court should: 1) sustain their
Dilatory Exception for Lack of Procedural Capacity and Peremptory Exception of
No Right of Action; 2) vacate the trial court’s oral order granting the Motion for
Substitution of Party Plaintiff; 3) strike all pleadings and oral enrollments of counsel
operating under a “defunct” law firm; and 4) dismiss this 8.5-year foreclosure action
with prejudice “due to a continuous chain of title and representation fraud, and a
total lack of any entity entitled to enforce the instrument under La. R.S. 10:3-301,”
as asserted in their motion for summary judgment.

In the alternative, relators request that this Court reverse the trial court’s ruling
sustaining their Exception of Lack of Procedural Capacity, and order Attorney
Wilbourn to submit into the record a certified contract of mandate by plaintiff U.S.
Bank, N.A.1

For the following reasons, on the showing made, we conclude that relators
have not shown that they are entitled to any of the relief requested in their writ
application, and accordingly deny the writ application. We also deny relators’
request for a stay of the proceedings below pending resolution of this writ
application.

ANALYSIS

As noted by relators, this is a mortgage foreclosure action, instituted against
them in January of 2018 by Wells Fargo, N.A., plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest.
In its Written Reasons for Judgment issued on July 8, 2026 concerning the June 17,
2026 judgment, the trial court summarized the matter’s very extensive procedural
history.

Relators assert herein that on December 19 and 29, 2025, they filed: 1) a
Peremptory Exception of No Right of Action; 2) a Dilatory Exception of Lack of

1
Relators also argue that at the hearing on June 17, 2026, their rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act were violated because they were not furnished with adaptive devices for the
hearing-impaired. Relators have not substantiated this claim herein, and furthermore such a claim
is not grounds to invalidate any of the rulings at issue herein.

Procedural Capacity, Motion to Strike, and Motion to Show Authority; and 3) a
Motion for Summary Judgment. Relators assert that on January 27, 2026, they filed
a Motion to Vacate Order on Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel.
According to the writ application and the judgment dated June 17, 2026, these
exceptions and motions were denied by the trial court at the June 17, 2026 hearing.
However, none of these pleadings are contained in the writ application, in violation
of Uniform Rules–Courts of Appeal, Rule 4-5(C)(8) and (9), which provide:

C. The submission shall contain these items: …

(8) a copy of each pleading on which the judgment, order, or
ruling was founded, including the petition(s) in civil cases and
the indictment or the bill of information in criminal cases.2
(9) a copy of any opposition and any attachments thereto filed by
a party in the trial court or a statement by the applicant that
no opposing written document was filed;

In any event, in its Written Reasons for Judgment, the trial court stated that
concerning relators’ Motion for Summary Judgment, which apparently centered on
whether U.S. Bank could prove its ownership of the promissory note in question,
this Court only found that U.S. Bank’s predecessor in interest, Wells Fargo, had not
sufficiently proven its ownership of the note at that time. The trial court went on to
find that U.S. Bank has corrected the previous defects and established its ownership
of the promissory note, through various listed documents and exhibits, and thus,
genuine issues of material fact remain and relators are not entitled to a dismissal of
this foreclosure proceeding as a matter of law, as apparently was requested in their
Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon de novo review, we also conclude that
relators are not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Concerning relators’ Exception of No Right of Action, in its Written Reasons
for Judgment, the trial court recognized that relators had noted a discrepancy
between the named party plaintiff (U.S. Bank National Association, Not in Its
Individual Capacity But Solely as Trustee of the NRZ Pass-Through Trust XVI) and
the listed plaintiff in the present motions (U.S. Bank Trust National Association,
Not in Its Individual Capacity But Solely as Trustee of the NRZ Pass-Through Trust
XVI), but went on to find based on the evidence and pleadings that U.S. Bank

2
The writ application does contain plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, exception of no right of action, and dilatory exception of lack of procedural
capacity.

confirmed that these are the same entities, and therefore, the trial court recognized
the proper party plaintiff has been involved in this matter. Again, upon review, we
conclude that relators have not shown that the trial court erred in its judgment
denying relators’ Exception of No Right of Action.

Concerning relators’ Exception of Lack of Procedural Capacity, in its Written
Reasons for Judgment, the trial court noted relators’ argument that McGlinchy
Stafford and Attorney Jonathan Wilbourn were improperly retained as counsel for
U.S. Bank in this case. The trial court found, however, that U.S. Bank’s Power of
Attorney shows that Fay Servicing, L.L.C., as the Attorney-in-Fact for U.S. Bank,
had proper and express authority to retain McGlinchey Stafford as counsel of record,
and upon transfer of the Mortgage Loan, Selene Finance, L.P., as the new mortgage
servicer for U.S. Bank Trust, had proper authority to retain McGlinchey Stafford.
The court therefore did not order McGlinchey Stafford to further show its authority
in this matter and refused to strike pleadings filed by McGlinchey Stafford. Again,
upon review, we conclude that relators have not shown that the trial court erred in
its judgment denying relators’ Exception of Lack of Procedural Capacity.

Finally, upon review, we also conclude that relators have not shown that the
trial court erred in its Order granting plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Substitute Party
Plaintiff.

For the foregoing reasons, we further decline relators’ request in their writ
application that we strike all pleadings and oral enrollments of counsel operating
under a “defunct” law firm, and further dismiss this 8.5-year foreclosure action with
prejudice “due to a continuous chain of title and representation fraud, and a total lack
of any entity entitled to enforce the instrument under La. R.S. 10:3-301,” as asserted
in their motion for summary judgment. We also decline relators’ request to order
Attorney Wilbourn to submit into the record a certified contract of mandate by
plaintiff U.S. Bank, N.A.

In conclusion, considering the writ application, including the extensive
Written Reasons for Judgment issued by the trial court on July 8, 2026, and the noted
omissions from the writ application, including the absence of the hearing’s
transcript,3 for the foregoing reasons, on the showing made, we conclude that relators

3
While a transcript of the hearing is not specifically required by the Uniform Rules, the
Order attached to relators’ Notice of Intent, which was prepared by relators and adopted in part by
the trial court who signed it on June 22, 2026, orders that “the Official Court Reporter provide a

have not shown that they are entitled to any of the relief requested in their writ
application. This writ application is accordingly denied. Relators’ request for a stay
of the proceeding below pending resolution of this writ application is also denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 23rd day of September, 2026.

JGG
SMC
MEJ

complete, certified transcript of the June 17, 2026 hearing to the Defendants upon payment of
costs.” As of the date of this disposition, no transcript has been supplemented in this writ
application.

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. TRAN
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 DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 09/23/2026 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

26-C-319
E-NOTIFIED
24th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable June B. Darensburg (DISTRICT JUDGE)
No Attorney(s) were ENOTIFIED

MAILED
Marc G. Barbe (Relator) Jonathan G. Wilbourn (Respondent) Corey J. Giroir (Respondent)
Renada Barbe (Relator) Attorney at Law Attorney at Law
In Proper Person 511 Union Street Post Office Box 87379
4421 Pike Drive Suite 1000 Baton Rouge, LA 70879
Metairie, LA 70003 Nashville, TN 37219