Andrew Richard Early, III v. The Unopened Succession of Lolalisa Clark

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT ANDREW RICHARD EARLY, IIT NO. 2025 CW 1144 VERSUS THE UNOPENED SUCCESSION OF MARCH 23, 2026 LOLALISA CLARK In Re: Andrew Richard Early, III, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 731932. BEFORE: McCLENDON, C.J., LANIER, WOLFE, HESTER AND BALFOUR, JJ. WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The district court’s May 6, 2025 judgment is vacated in part. To the extent the district court found the succession of Katie King was a necessary party, the judgment is vacated. A party is indispensable only when the facts clearly establish that no complete and equitable adjudication of the controversy can be made in his absence. The burden of proving an exception is on the party asserting it. Carter v. Baton Rouge City~-Par. Employees' Ret. Sys., 612 So.2d 765, 767 (La. App. Ist Cir. 1992). Defendant failed to introduce evidence to prove the grounds of its exception as to the succession of Katie King. The writ is denied in part as to the Unopened Succession of Lolalisa Clark. The succession representative of that succession is necessary to a complete adjudication of the claims asserted herein. The succession representative appointed by a court of this state is the proper defendant in an action to enforce an obligation of the deceased or of his succession, while the latter is under administration. La. Code Civ. P. art. 734. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art. 5091(A) (1) (c) provides that the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the defendant on petition or ex parte written motion of the plaintiff when the defendant is deceased and no succession representative has been appointed. Subsection (B) further provides for the limited purpose of any such action or proceeding, the appointed attorney at law shall be the proper representative of the succession of any such decedent to the same extent as if he were the regularly appointed and duly qualified administrator or executor in such decedent's succession. EW CHH Balfour, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. JI concur in vacating the district court’s May 6, 2025 judgment as to the succession of Katie King. However, I dissent from the denial of the writ in part as to the Unopened Succession of Lolalisa Clark. The burden of proving an exception is on the party asserting it. Carter v. Baton Rouge City-Par. Employees' Ret. Sys., 612 So.2d 765, 767 (La. App. lst Cir. 1992). Defendant failed to introduce evidence to prove the grounds of its exception. McClendon, C.J. and Lanier, J., concur in part and dissent in part and would deny the writ in its entirety. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT \ FOR THE COURT