No. 13135 Precedential Remanded Processed

Jenks v. Gulla

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed February 25, 1980 · 383 So. 2d 1052

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., September 30, 1982 422 So. 2d 443; La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., February 14, 1977 342 So. 2d 1201

Cited by

LA. BUSINESS COLLEGE v. Crump 474 So. 2d 1366 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
Blackburn v. Deason 430 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Bourque v. Tyler 401 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Mattox v. American Indemnity Company 259 So. 2d 79
New Orleans Industrial Canal Land & Harbor Development Co. v. Kohler 150 So. 874
Fruge v. Langley 146 So. 486

Opinion text

COLE, Judge. This is an appeal from the sustaining of the peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata. At issue is whether the trial court had evidence before it on which to base its holding. Appellant asserts the exception was decided upon oral argument without the introduction of any documentary or other evidence. James Bernard Jenks, plaintiff-appellant, brought suit in The Family Court of East Baton Rouge Parish seeking a judgment declaring null a 1972 Arkansas divorce between Rufus W. Ashley, Jr. and the defendant, Bobbie Gulla. Jenks also prayed that his 1973 marriage to the defendant as well as his subsequent separation and divorce decrees be declared absolute nullities. Defendant responded with the objection of res judicata. She alleged her Arkansas divorce and subsequent marriage to Jenks had been held valid in a previous suit between the parties in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court. The record on appeal does not contain any evidence on which the trial court could have based its ruling. Through clerical inadvertence or otherwise, the suit record of the previous litigation between the parties is not before us. We cannot take judicial cognizance of suit records of other courts. Mattox v. American Indemnity Co., 259 So.2d 79 (La.App.4th Cir. 1972); New Orleans Industrial Canal Land & Harbor Development Co. v. Kohler, 150 So. 874 (La.App.Orl.Cir.1933); Fruge v. Langley, 146 So. 486 (La.App.1st Cir. 1933). Nor is there a transcript of the hearing on the exception. We have no way of knowing if *1053 any admissions or stipulations were made which were the basis for the court’s opinion. We do not necessarily equate the absence of evidence in the record with the proposition that the trial court did not, in fact, have sufficient evidence before it upon which to properly adjudicate the issue. In the interest of justice and judicial efficiency, we remand to the lower court in order that any evidence previously offered may be made a part of the record and, if necessary, to allow evidence to be offered on the exception. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is vacated and set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the above opinion. Costs are to await final disposition of the case. REMANDED.