Rachelle Marie Blanchard v. Byron Kury Deshotels

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

24-327

RACHELLE MARIE BLANCHARD

VERSUS

BYRON KURT DESHOTELS

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. MARTIN, NO. 91232
HONORABLE ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CLAYTON DAVIS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jonathan W. Perry, Sharon Darville Wilson, and Clayton Davis,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Diane A. Sorola, APLC
402 W. Convent Street
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501
(337) 234-2355
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Byron Kurt Deshotels

Michael John Daspit
Daspit Law Office, APLC
107 E. Claiborne Street
St. Martinville, Louisiana 70582
(337) 394-3290
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Rachelle Marie Blanchard

DAVIS, Judge.

The trial court found a prenuptial agreement between wife, Rachelle, and

husband, Kurt, valid, thus creating a separation of property regime for their

marriage. Eighteen months after this ruling, Rachelle requested a trial date on her

motion for declaratory judgment that the agreement was not enforceable. Rachelle

argued that the trial court’s earlier ruling addressed only the agreement’s validity

as to form and not the agreement’s enforceability. Kurt filed an exception of res

judicata which the trial court sustained. Rachelle appeals this ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard of review is de novo when the question is whether a prior

judgment had a res judicata effect on a subsequent judgment. Strenge v. ABC

Insurance Co., 24-182 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/27/24), ___ So.3d ___ (2024 WL

4903053). The test for res judicata requires four findings: 1) the parties are

identical or in privity; 2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent

jurisdiction; 3) the prior decision was concluded by a final judgment on the merits;

and 4) the same claim or cause of action was involved in both actions. See

Fogleman v. Meaux Surface Protection, Inc., 10-1210 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/9/11), 58

So.3d 1057, writ denied, 11-712 (La. 5/27/11), 63 So.3d 995.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rachelle filed for divorce seeking termination of the couple’s community

property regime retroactive to the date of filing. Kurt filed an Answer,

Reconventional Demand, and Exception of No Right of Action stating that the

parties had a prenuptial agreement that established a separation of property regime.

Kurt prayed for a hearing on several issues including that the prenuptial agreement

“be declared valid and, therefore, no community property exists.” Two days before

the date of the hearing, Rachelle filed for a declaratory judgment that the

prenuptial agreement was invalid or, alternatively, unenforceable.

Rachelle’s attack on the prenuptial agreement was based on these

allegations:

1. It was signed at home without witnesses or notary, contrary to the
assertions in the document;

2. Kurt exercised undue influence on Rachelle by presenting it to her
four days before the wedding and threatening to call off the
wedding if she did not sign;

3. Kurt did not allow Rachelle to seek legal advice;

4. Kurt promised to pay Rachelle $100,000 if a divorce was ever
filed, which he did not do;

5. Kurt promised to annul a prior marriage,

6. Kurt failed to disclose his wealth to Rachelle, and

7. The agreement did not state that legal rights have been explained
to either party.

At trial, the court took evidence of the events surrounding the signing of the

prenuptial agreement. Counsel for Rachelle cross-examined Kurt on most of the

allegations noted above. At the close of the trial, the court rendered judgment in

favor of Kurt stating, “[t]he prenuptial agreement is valid. It’s enforceable.

Therefore, there exists no community property regime . . . with regard to these

parties.” The ruling was memorialized in a June 29, 2022, judgment. No writ or

appeal was taken from this judgment.

On December 20, 2023, Rachelle requested a trial date on her declaratory

judgment challenging the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement. Kurt

responded with an Exception of Res Judicata. The trial court sustained the

exception finding all matters of validity and enforceability of the prenuptial

contract had been adjudicated at the 2022 trial.
2

DISCUSSION

Rachelle presents two issues for review. First, she argues that Kurt did not

file an exception to her declaratory judgment challenging the enforceability of the

prenuptial agreement. Second, she argues that Kurt’s pleadings did not place the

issue of enforceability before the court, and no evidence was presented on this

issue at the 2022 trial. These two issues are essentially the same because both

contend that enforceability of the prenuptial agreement remained at issue after the

2022 trial.

Rachelle’s claim that the trial court did not rule on the issue of enforceability

is belied by the notice setting the matter for trial, the evidence taken at the trial,

and the trial court’s comments and ruling regarding the prenuptial agreement’s

validity and enforceability. Kurt’s pleadings and the notice setting his issues for

trial all unequivocally place “no community property” at issue. The prenuptial

agreement must be enforceable to eliminate community property. Furthermore, the

transcript of the proceedings shows Rachelle’s counsel knew enforceability was at

issue. He cross-examined Kurt on factors Rachelle relied on to challenge

enforceability:

Q. You presented her that prenup four days before your wedding; isn’t
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact you told her, “You don’t sign this, we’re not getting
married.”

A. Yes.

Q. So it was a condition of getting married: Sign this, or else?

A. Two years before that, yeah. A year before that, it was a condition
that I was going to have a prenup with her, yes.

Q. But four days before the wedding, you told her, “Sign this, or we
3

don’t get married.”

....

Q. And at that time, you promised to pay her $100,000 if ever y’all
divorced?

A. Never, never, no. That’s BS. I tell you what: If that was legal — if
that was what I said, I promise you it’d be on a piece of paper
notarized.
Do you have a paper where it’s notarized? Can I ask the court — oh,
excuse me.

Rachelle has no excuse for failing to present her own evidence or relying on

her pleadings filed two days before the trial. She had ample notice that the trial

would determine the community versus separate property issue.

Rachelle cites Jefferson v. Board of Supervisors of S. Univ. & Agric. &

Mech. College, 21-716 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/3/22), 341 So.3d 603, as a case like hers.

It is not. Jefferson concerns two lawsuits brought by the same person but involving

separate claims and circumstances. Here, Rachelle attempted to revive the exact

issue she lost earlier and memorialized in the June 29, 2022 judgment.

DECREE

The trial court’s judgment sustaining the peremptory Exception of Res

Judicata as asserted by Appellee, Byron Kurt Deshotels, is AFFIRMED. All costs

are assessed to Appellant, Rachelle Marie Blanchard.

AFFIRMED.

4