Case Name: Mrs. Renee G. LIEBENDORFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James F. GAYLE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1968-06-18
Citations: 217 So. 2d 37
Docket Number: No. 2351
Parties: Mrs. Renee G. LIEBENDORFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James F. GAYLE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before CULPEPPER, HOOD, and LEAR, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 217
Pages: 37–47

Head Matter:
Mrs. Renee G. LIEBENDORFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James F. GAYLE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2351.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.
June 18, 1968.
On liehearing Oct. 3, 1968.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1968.
Writ Refused Feb. 24, 1969.
John Sheldon Toomer, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hall, Raggio, Farrar & Barnett, by, Louis D. Bufkin, Lake Charles, for defendant-appellee.
Before CULPEPPER, HOOD, and LEAR, JJ.

Opinion:
LEAR, Judge.
This is another chapter in the unfortunate history of these party litigants. See Liebendorfer v. Gayle, La.App., 210 So.2d 120.
In this proceeding, plaintiff, ex-wife of defendant and mother of his four minor children, again alleges the judicial separation of 1959 and the "settlement of community" of March 23, 1960, entered into between the parties herein.
In this proceeding, however, petitioner complains of the status of certain shares of stock in the Texas Fund, Inc., which she alleges is being held by defendant as sole trustee for three of the four minor children, and which she alleges should be returned to the community mass and partitioned between her and her ex-husband for two reasons: First, that the Louisiana law prohibits a trust settlor from being the sole trustee under a trust agreement, and, secondly, that defendant had agreed to equalize this stock amongst all four children, which he has failed and refused to do.
She next asserts that defendant obtained recognition of his individual ownership in certain stock in that corporation known as Open A-l Ranch, Inc., through fraud and deception practiced upon her, and that therefore the entire settlement of community agreement should be declared null and void.
Insofar as the shares of Texas Fund, Jnc., are, .concerned, the record clearly shows that said shares have been equalized among the four children, and we feel that the district court has correctly disposed of this issue, as follows:
"The evidence reflects that the shares of stock have been registered in accordance with the Louisiana Gifts to Minors Act, R.S. 9:735 et seq. The court is of the opinion that the intent of Mr. Gayle and Mrs. Liebendorfer, as reflected by the documentary evidence, was to donate the securities in question to the minors and for Mr. Gayle to hold them as custodian. While it is true that he has only recently caused the shares to be registered properly, the court has absolutely no doubt that he has been holding the shares on behalf of the minors as custodian and that there has been no improper conduct on his part .
"There is no suggestion and no proof that Mr. Gayle has in any way disposed of, misused, or otherwise improperly handled the shares belonging to the minors. The only justified criticism of his conduct would be with reference to the delay in having the shares registered in correct form, and no damage or prejudice to the minors has resulted. Otherwise, the shares have been kept safe for the minor owners."
We now consider whether the trial court correctly sustained the exception of res ju-dicata as to the plaintiff's attack on the community property settlement. The learned trial judge stated:
"The exceptor urges res judicata in bar of the present suit. His contention, the facts of which are established by the evidence presented, is that the community property settlement between the two parties here was incorporated in an Arkansas proceeding, which was entitled 'Renee Gayle v. James F. Gayle', Number 32,982 on the docket of the Chancery Court of Garland County, Arkansas."
The plaintiff, who is the same person as the present plaintiff, Mrs. Liebendorfer, obtained the divorce in Arkansas and had the community property settlement incorporated in the Arkansas decree on June 1, 1960. Therein the court specifically recognized and approved the agreement.
The trial court noted the pronouncement of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Sheard v. Green, 219 La. 199, 52 So.2d 714, wherein an exception of no cause or right of action was upheld in an almost identical situation. The basis of such holding was that the attack was a collateral attack on a judgment of a sister state and the court could consider only the question of jurisdictional requirements of domicile.
In our opinion, the law has now been changed. See Boudreaux v. Welch, 249 La. 983, 192 So.2d 356 (1966), followed by this court in Gay v. Gay, 203 So.2d 379. In Gay v. Gay we said:
"A collateral attack may be entertained here if the rendering state would permit such an attack."
In the instant case, plaintiff alleges fraud on the part of her husband in the original community property settlement which she later incorporated into the Arkansas decree. Plaintiff is entitled to show that such an attack is permissible in Arkansas (which is likely the case).
The judgment of the trial court insofar as Texas Fund, Inc., is concerned is affirmed; insofar as that portion regarding Open A-l Ranch, Inc., is concerned, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.