Ann Coffey Bean v. Jonathan S. Bean

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-280

ANN COFFEY BEAN

VERSUS

JONATHAN S. BEAN, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-2017-3718-A
HONORABLE JOHN D. TRAHAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********
JOHN D. SAUNDERS

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT GRANTED.
MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DEADLINES GRANTED.

Steven G. Durio
Randy M. Guidry
Lauren N. Maurer
Durio, McGoffin, Stagg & Ackerman
220 Heymann Blvd.
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
(337) 233-0300
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:
Ann Coffey Bean

James H. Gibson
Charles M. Kreamer, Sr.
Gibson Law Partners, LLC
2448-A Johnston Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
(337) 761-6025
Counsel for Appellees:
Theo B. Bean, IV, Patrick A. Bean, Independent Co-Administrators of
the Succession of Theo B. Bean, Jr.

Michael D. Herbert
Seth T. Mansfield
Becker and Hebert, LLC
201 Rue Beauregard
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508
(337) 233-1987
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees:
Theo B. Bean, IV, and Patrick Bean, Individually, and Theo B. Bean, IV,
and Patrick Bean, Independent Co-Administrators of the Succession of
Theo B. Bean, Jr.

Cliff Lacour
Neuner Pate
1001 West Pinhook Road, Suite 200
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503
(337) 237-7000
Counsel for Appellees:
Theo B. Bean, Jr. Family Trust, Jonathan S. Bean in his personal
capacity and in the capacity of Trustee of the Theo B. Bean, Jr. Family
Trust, and David E. “Dusty” Dought in his personal capacity and in the
capacity of Trustee of the Theo B. Bean, Jr. Family Trust

Lester J. Zaunbrecher
Laura Pryor Johnson
Allen and Gooch
2000 Kaliste Saloom Road, Suite 400
Lafayette, Louisiana 70508
(337) 291-1300
Counsel for Appellees:
Theo B. Bean, IV, Patrick A. Bean, Independent Co-Administrators of
the Succession of Theo B. Bean, Jr.

SAUNDERS, Judge.

Ann Coffey Bean (Ann) filed a petition for devolutive appeal, seeking

review of the dismissal of her petition alleging intentional interference after the

granting of an exception of no cause of action filed on behalf of Theo B. Bean, IV,

and Patrick A. Bean (Bean & Bean), who are the Independent Co-Administrators

of the Succession of Theo B. Bean, Jr. (Toby). The record has been lodged with

this court, but Bean & Bean have filed a motion to supplement the record and a

motion to suspend the briefing deadlines set by this court. Ann opposes the motion

to supplement.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ann married Toby on February 12, 2015. Toby filed for divorce in February

of 2017, but before the divorce proceedings could be concluded, Toby died. This

litigation arises out of Ann’s disputed claims to Toby’s estate.

One of the petitions filed by Ann alleged intentional interference by the

executors of Toby’s succession. In response, the executors filed dilatory

exceptions of prematurity and vagueness and peremptory exceptions of no cause of

action, no right of action, and res judicata. The trial court heard all these

exceptions and granted the exception of no cause of action, dismissing the petition

for intentional interference. All other exceptions were found to be moot by the

granting of the exception of no cause of action. The instant appeal followed.

When Ann received the estimated costs of appeal, she sought a reduction

thereof based on her designation of only these portions of the record:

1. Her Petition for Intentional Interference filed on June 25, 2018.

2. Co-Executors’ Exception of No Cause of Action filed on August 2,
2018 with any memoranda and exhibits attached thereto.

3. Her September 28, 2018 memorandum in Opposition to Co-
Executors’ Exceptions.

4. Co-Executors’ Reply Memorandum filed on October 2, 2018.

5. Court transcript of the hearing held on October 8, 2018, regarding
Executors’ Exception of No Cause of Action.

6. Order of the Court entered on October 24, 2018.

7. Her Motion for Devolutive Appeal filed January 8, 2019.

8. Order granting Devolutive Appeal on January 14, 2019.

9. Notice of Appeal entered on January 24, 2019.

After receiving Ann’s designation of the record, Bean & Bean filed a

response to her application for reduction of estimated costs and their own

designation of record contents. Their designation of record contents listed:

1. Dilatory Exceptions of Prematurity and Vagueness, Peremptory
Exceptions of No Cause of Action, No Right of Action, and Res
Judicata to [Ann’s] Petition for Intentional Interference filed by
Jonathan S. Bean, Theo B. Bean, IV, and C. Scott Akers, Jr., in their
capacity as Independent Co-Executors, on August 28, 2018, with
Memorandum in Support and Exhibits 1-3:

a. Exceptors’ Exhibit 1 – Transcript of domicile trial
held on numerous non-consecutive days between January
31, 2018-February 2, 2018, April 23-27, 2018, May 23,
2018, and May 30, 2018. The transcript totals 1,417
pages.

b. Exceptors’ Exhibit 2 – Exhibits introduced into
evidence at domicile trial. The exhibits total 3,147 pages
and consist of Executors’ Exhibits 1-192 and [Ann’s]
Exhibits AB1-AB105.

c. Exceptors’ Exhibit 3 – Judgment on domicile signed
June 13, 2018 and filed June 18, 2018.

2. Defendants’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Dilatory Exception
of Prematurity, Dilatory Exception of Vagueness, Peremptory
Exception of No Cause of Action, Peremptory Exception of No Right
of Action, and Peremptory Exception of Res Judicata filed by
Jonathan S. Bean, Theo B. Bean, IV, and C. Scott Akers, Jr., in their
capacity as Independent Co-Executors, on October 2, 2018;

3. Transcript of all proceedings on Defendants’ Dilatory Exceptions
of Prematurity and Vagueness, Peremptory Exceptions of No Cause

2

of Action, No Right of Action, and Res Judicata to [Ann’s] Petition
for Intentional Interference on October 8, 2018;

4. Judgment entered by Judge John D. Trahan on October 24, 2018;
and

5. November 2, 2018 Notice of Signing of Judgment.

Their designation of record contents does not appear in the record as lodged in this

court. When Bean & Bean received a copy of the record lodged in this court, they

became aware that the exhibits to their exceptions were not contained in the record

even though the index states that the memorandum in support of their exceptions is

“with Attachment.” They alleged that the exhibits to their exceptions were not

attached to and re-filed with the exceptions and supporting memorandum because

the exhibits were voluminous and were already a part of the suit record.

Bean & Bean filed a motion to supplement the record with those exhibits,

alleging that the record is incomplete without them. Bean & Bean also filed a

motion to suspend the briefing deadlines set by this court due to the necessity of

supplementation of the record.

Ann opposed the motion to supplement, alleging that the exhibits cannot be

considered by this court since they were not considered by the trial court in its

grant of the exception of no cause of action. See La.Code Civ.P. art. 931. Ann

also asserts that the record cannot be supplemented pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art.

2132 because none of the conditions listed in that article are present in this case.

Ann asserts that the record is correct and does not contain misstatements,

irregularities or informalities or omit a material part of the trial record because the

exhibits sought to be added to the appellate record by Bean & Bean were

inadmissible at the hearing on the exception of no cause of action.

3

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 931 provides that “[n]o evidence

may be introduced at any time to support or controvert the objection that the

petition fails to state a cause of action.” However, the record is clear that several

exceptions in addition to the exception of no cause of action were filed by Bean &

Bean in one pleading and that all exceptions were considered by the trial court at

one hearing. Moreover, there is a jurisprudential exception to the rule that no

evidence may be introduced, “and a court may consider evidence admitted without

objection to enlarge the pleadings.” Stewart v. Stewart, 15-153, p. 11 (La.App. 3

Cir. 6/3/15), 166 So.3d 448, 455. Ann’s argument based on La.Code Civ.P. art.

931 ignores these facts.

Moreover, Ann’s opposition ignores the fact that La.Code Civ.P. art. 2128

provides that the appellee “may also designate in a writing filed with the trial court

such other portions of the record as he considers necessary.” In State in Interest of

E.A.D., 18-451, pp. 4-5 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/2/18), 250 So.3d 1237, 1240, this court

recently stated:

When the appellant designates the record, an appellee is
provided an opportunity to designate additional portions of the record
that it deems necessary for review. See Hamilton v. Progressive Sec.
Ins. Co., 10-1005 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/6/10), 49 So.3d 513. See also
Hooper v. Hero Lands Co., 15-929 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/30/16), 216
So.3d 965, writ denied, 16-971 (La. 9/16/16), 206 So.3d 205 (trial
court did not err in ordering production of the entire record to the
court of appeal when appellant designated only a portion of the
record, but appellee designated the entire record; the court found that
“[w]ithout the entire record, it would be extremely difficult to unravel
the facts and several complex issues in this case, a difficulty
compounded by the appellants’ apparent inability to present
straightforward and consistent arguments.” Id. at 980.) See La.Code
Civ.P. art. 2128. See also Hamilton, 49 So.3d 513.

If the parties differ in their designations, “the clerk shall prepare the record

on appeal as so directed, but a party or the trial court may cause to be filed

thereafter any omitted portion of the record as a supplemental record.” La.Code

4

Civ.P. art. 2128. In this instance, even though Ann specifies the exception of no

cause of action, the designations of Ann and Bean & Bean appear to be the same

because all exceptions were filed in one pleading. Even if the designations are

deemed to be different, the clerk should have prepared the record as designated by

Ann and Bean & Bean, meaning that the record should have included the

documents attached as exhibits to the exceptions filed by Bean & Bean. Since the

exhibits were not included in the record as designated by Bean & Bean, Bean &

Bean are entitled to have the record supplemented under La.Code Civ.P. art. 2128. 1

DECREE

For these reasons, the motion to supplement the record filed by Bean &

Bean is granted. The record will hereby be supplemented with the following

documents:

1. Dilatory Exceptions of Prematurity and Vagueness, Peremptory
Exceptions of No Cause of Action, No Right of Action, and Res
Judicata to [Ann’s] Petition for Intentional Interference filed by
Jonathan S. Bean, Theo B. Bean, IV, and C. Scott Akers, Jr., in their
capacity as Independent Co-Executors, on August 28, 2018, with
Memorandum in Support and Exhibits 1-3:

a. Exceptors’ Exhibit 1 – Transcript of domicile trial
held on numerous non-consecutive days between January
2018, and May 30, 2018. The transcript totals 1,417 31,
2018-February 2, 2018, April 23-27, 2018, May 23,
pages.

1
“The record on appeal is that which is sent by the trial court to the appellate court and
includes the pleadings, court minutes, transcript, jury instructions, judgments and other rulings,
unless otherwise designated. La.Code Civ.P. arts 2127 and 2128.” Frank v. Frank, 06-1223, pp.
6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/7/07), 948 So.2d 1224, 1228 (emphasis added). Memoranda with attached
exhibits that are not filed in evidence are not part of the record on appeal. Tranum v. Hebert, 581
So.2d 1023 (La.App. 1 Cir.), writ denied, 584 So.2d 1169 (La.1991).

In this case, the documents were attached to the exceptions which stated that the
documents were “offered, filed and introduced” in support of the exceptions. The transcript and
the judgment are part of the record, and the minutes reflect that the documents listed were
introduced into evidence at other hearings. The transcript of the hearing on the exceptions does
not indicate that the exhibits were re-introduced into evidence separately from the statement in
the exceptions. Ann does not allege and the transcript does not indicate that Ann objected to the
introduction of these exhibits. Moreover, Ann and Bean & Bean specifically designated the
memoranda as part of the record. Memoranda may be designated as part of the record under
La.Code Civ.P. art. 2128.
5

b. Exceptors’ Exhibit 2 – Exhibits introduced into
evidence at domicile trial. The exhibits total 3,147 pages
and consist of Executors’ Exhibits 1-192 and [Ann’s]
Exhibits AB1-AB105.

c. Exceptors’ Exhibit 3 – Judgment on domicile signed
June 13, 2018 and filed June 18, 2018.

The Clerk of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, is

ordered to prepare and transmit to this Court by June 7, 2019, a supplemental

record, in duplicate, containing the documents listed above, as designated by Bean

& Bean in the designation of contents of record filed by them in the district court.

Costs for this supplemental record are assessed to Bean & Bean.

Since the motion to supplement the record is granted, the motion to suspend

briefing deadlines filed by Bean & Bean is also granted. New briefing deadlines

will be issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court for the Court of Appeal, Third

Circuit, once the supplemental record is lodged.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT GRANTED.
MOTION TO SUSPEND BRIEFING DEADLINES GRANTED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Rule 2-16.3 Uniform Rules, Courts of Appeal.

6