David Scott Trahan v. Kaycee Rebecca Martin

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

19-430

DAVID SCOTT TRAHAN

VERSUS

KAYCEE REBECCA MARTIN, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 2016-2915
HONORABLE DAVID A. RITCHIE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

D. KENT SAVOIE

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of D. Kent Savoie, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

Skipper M. Drost
Marianna Schlag
Drost Law Firm, LLC
One Lakeshore Drive, Suite 100
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70601
(337) 436-4546
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
David Scott Trahan

Donald W. Martin
Post Office Box 2457
Leesville, Louisiana 71496
(832) 643-5801
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
William R. Martin
Cynthia Martin

David L. Wallace
Post Office Box 489
DeRidder, Louisiana 70634
(337) 462-0473
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Tracie Evans
Tomas Evans

Gregory N. Wampler
Lemoine & Wampler
607 Main Street
Pineville, Louisiana 71360
(318) 473-4220
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Kaycee Rebecca Martin

James Huey Gibson
Michael Wayne Adley
Gibson Law Partners
Post Office Box 52124
Lafayette, Louisiana 70505
(337) 761-6023
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES:
Kaylee Basco
Alvin Dowden
Ashley Stanley

Robert Sere’ Kleinschmidt, Jr.
Assistant District Attorney
Fourteenth Judicial District
Post Office Box 1154
Lake Charles, Louisiana 70602
(337) 437-3400
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
H. Lynn Jones, II, Clerk of Court

SAVOIE, Judge.

Defendants-Appellees, Alvin C. Dowden, Jr.; Kaylee Basco; and Ashley Stanley,

filed a motion to dismiss the instant appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons that

follow, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant, David Scott Trahan (Trahan), filed a Rule to Cancel

Mortgage and Donation on July 15, 2016. The petition has been amended four times

since the original filing. At issue herein is a piece of property located in Calcasieu

Parish which Trahan alleged was donated to him by Defendant, Kaycee Rebecca Brown

Martin (Kaycee), on November 10, 2014. Despite having purportedly donated the

property to Trahan, on May 19, 2016, Kaycee executed and filed a mortgage in favor

of Defendant, William Randall Martin (Randy), wherein she mortgaged the allegedly

already-donated property as security for a debt in the amount of $225,000.00, without

Trahan’s knowledge and/or consent. Then, on June 7, 2016, Kaycee executed and filed

a donation inter vivos allegedly given by Trahan in favor of Kaycee wherein Kaycee

allegedly fraudulently donated the same property from Trahan back to herself, without

Trahan’s knowledge and/or consent. The purportedly fraudulent act of donation was

notarized by Defendant, Alvin C. Dowden, Jr. (Dowden), and witnessed by Defendants,

Ashley Stanley (Stanley) and Kaylee Basco (Basco).

On August 25, 2016, after suit had been filed on July 15, 2016, Kaycee executed

and filed a Dation en Paiement in favor of Randy wherein the title to the property was

transferred to Randy, and, in doing so, this cancelled the mortgage. On September 2,

2016, Randy and Defendant, Cynthia Martin (Cynthia), filed a sale and mortgage of the

property in favor of Defendants, Tracie L. Evans (Tracie) and Tomas P. Evans (Tomas),

transferring title to the property to Tracie and Tomas.

Numerous motions and exceptions have been filed in this matter, including those

at issue herein, a motion for summary judgment to revoke the original donation of the

property filed by Kaycee and motions for summary judgment on loss of property,

economic loss, and emotional distress filed by Dowden, Basco, and Stanley. Following

a hearing held on January 11, 2019, Kaycee’s motion for summary judgment was

granted, resulting in the revocation of the November 10, 2014 act of donation from

Kaycee to Trahan. The remaining motions for summary judgment filed against Trahan

were deemed moot. Further, all issues and claims related to the alleged forgery on the

subsequent donation were rendered moot. Lastly, the trial court held that all claims

asserted by Kaycee, Randy, and Cynthia were specifically reserved to them,

respectively. Trahan was assessed with all costs of these proceedings. A written

judgment was signed on February 8, 2019.

In the instant motion, Defendants-Appellees argue that the judgment is not a final

judgment and has not been designated as a final judgment under La.Code Civ.P. art.

1915(B). Defendants-Appellees explain that in addition to seeking the revocation of

Kaycee’s original donation to Trahan, in her reconventional demand against Trahan,

Kaycee impleaded Geaux Cajun Catering, LLC, a business she owned with Trahan.

Kaycee alleged that Trahan breached fiduciary duties and mismanaged Geaux Cajun

Catering, LLC, and she sought damages as a result of same. She also requested the

appointment of a liquidator to investigate any mismanagement of Geaux Cajun

Catering, LLC, and to conclude its affairs. Randy also filed a reconventional demand

wherein he alleged that he made personal loans to Trahan and Geaux Cajun Catering,

LLC, and that no payments had been made on the loans. Additionally, Randy alleged

that Trahan and Geaux Cajun Catering, LLC, are in default of a promissory note. Randy

later amended his reconventional demand to add his wife, Cynthia, as a plaintiff-in-

reconvention. In addition to these claims, Defendants-Appellees state that Randy and

Cynthia sought to pierce the corporate veil of Geaux Cajun Catering, LLC, to impose

personal liability on Trahan.

Defendants-Appellees conclude that the judgment does not dispose of the entire

matter and does not contain decretal language dismissing any party to the suit. As such,

2

Defendants-Appellees urge that the judgment is a partial final judgment for which no

appeal may be taken until the judgment has been designated as final. La.Code Civ.P.

art. 1915(B); see also Gerhold v. Giles, 11-992 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/25/12), 83 So.3d 1170,

and McClellan v. Premier Nissan, L.L.C., 18-376 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/19/18), 262 So.3d

453.

In opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal, Trahan argues that the granting

of the motion for summary judgment extinguished all issues and claims pertaining to

the alleged forgery of the June 7, 2016 donation inter vivos. In fact, Trahan maintains,

the language of the judgment rendered them moot. Trahan contends that his claims

against Defendants-Appellees in regard to the alleged forgery of the June 7, 2016

donation, in the eyes of the court, were of no legal significance, and thus, the trial court

extinguished his claims against Defendants-Appellees with finality. The very basis of

the claim, Trahan urges, was eradicated, even though the merits of the case were not

decided in whole. Trahan concludes that under La.Code Civ.P. art. 1915(A), a final

judgment may be rendered by the court when granting a motion for summary judgment

in accordance with La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. The instant appeal, Trahan adds, was filed

under Article 1915(A), which, in accordance with La.Code Civ.P. art. 1911(B), is

appealable without being designated a final judgment. Louisiana Code of Civil

Procedure Article 1911(B) provides, in part, that “[a]n appeal may be taken from a final

judgment under Article 1915(A) without the judgment being so designated.”

Although the merits of the instant case were not decided in whole, the trial court’s

ruling dismissed, or rendered moot, all claims asserted by Trahan against Defendants-

Appellees, i.e., the principal demand in this case. As such, we find that the ruling at

issue is a partial final judgment under Article 1915(A) and is immediately appealable

pursuant to Article 1911(B). Accordingly, we deny Defendants-Appellants motion to

dismiss the appeal.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED.

3

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

4