Braquet v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund

• Decision Date: 30 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 13051,13051
• Citation: 419 So.2d 30
• Parties: 6 Ed. Law Rep. 850 Louis J. BRAQUET, et als. v. The ADMINISTRATORS OF the TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 30

419 So.2d 30

6 Ed. Law Rep. 850

Louis J. BRAQUET, et als. v. The ADMINISTRATORS OF the TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND.

No. 13051.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

July 30, 1982.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1982.

George P. Webre, Metairie, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toller & Sarpy, C. Manly Horton, Wiley G. Lastrapes, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before REDMANN, AUGUSTINE and CIACCIO, JJ.

CIACCIO, Judge.

Plaintiffs, the collateral relatives and presumptive intestate heirs of James Mitchell Rogers, have brought this action seeking revocation of the donation mortis causa by James M. Rogers to defendant, The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund (Tulane). Plaintiffs allege that Tulane failed to fulfill the condition imposed upon the legacy by the testator, i.e., the construction of a non-sectarian chapel on the campus of Newcomb College of Tulane University, memorializing decedent's late sister, Myra Clare Rogers. Following a trial on the merits, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and the plaintiffs filed this devolutive appeal.

James Mitchell Rogers, testator, died in March 1959. He left a last will dated July 9, 1954, which revoked all previous wills and bequeathed his entire estate to Tulane,

"for the construction of a non-sectarian chapel on the campus of Newcomb College of Tulane University. This chapel, which shall be of such size and design as to serve the needs of the University, shall be known forever and marked as the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel, and is given by me to serve as an everlasting memorial of her life and service to the community as a member of the faculty of Newcomb College."

Tulane, seized of all estate assets in 1959, successfully sued to invalidate a codicil prohibiting alienation of any real estate. ¹

In 1972 the same individuals who are plaintiffs-appellants in this action sued to nullify the donation mortis causa for Tulane's failure to build the chapel. Tulane had not commenced any type of construction. The trial court found defendant's delay unreasonable and granted Tulane a deadline within which to perform, viz., 18 months to complete the chapel. This Court affirmed, but amended the trial court judgment and ordered that construction begin within twelve months and that the chapel should be completed within 24 months, and, on rehearing, absent delays beyond Tulane's control. Braquet et al v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, 304 So.2d 720 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1974).

On May 2, 1977, plaintiffs filed the instant suit seeking an accounting from Tulane alleging that the condition imposed by James M. Rogers upon the legacy has not been fulfilled. It is not disputed that funds derived from the James M. Rogers Estate were used by Tulane to construct a building which, on May 14, 1976, was dedicated and named the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel. The plaintiffs complain that this building is not in compliance with the will of the testator because it accommodates religious and non-religious activities and does not memorialize Myra Clare Rogers.

Plaintiffs argue on appeal that certain facts concerning the nature of the chapel were decided in Braquet et al v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, and are res judicata. Secondly, the plaintiffs argue that the testator's intentions were misinterpreted by the trial court so as to make them violate the Louisiana Constitution in that the building houses the Judeo-Christian Chair of Religion. Additionally, plaintiffs complain that the trial court erred in holding that Tulane has satisfied the intent of the testator by building the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel.

The issues presented for consideration on this appeal are (1) Did the holding in Braquet et al v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, establish as res judicata facts concerning the nature of the chapel to be built? (2) Did the trial court interpret the will as requiring the fulfillment of an unconstitutional condition? (3) Did the building of the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel fulfill the intent of the testator?

Res Judicata

Plaintiffs argue in brief that this Court's decision in Braquet et al v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra established as res judicata that in order to fulfill the intent of the testator Tulane had to (1) build a traditional chapel (2) memorializing Myra Clare Rogers, and only her, (3) within 24 months of August 1, 1974. ² Also established as res judicata by the decision in Braquet et al v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, plaintiffs argue, was (4) that a multi-purpose building was not what the testator intended and (5) that the chapel was to be marked and forever known as the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel with a specifically worded plaque installed. ³

In Louisiana, res judicata is stricti juris ; "a final judgment has the authority of res judicata only to those issues presented in the pleadings and conclusively adjudicated by the court." See: Lambert v. Maryland Casualty Company, 403 So.2d 739 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1981); Scurlock Oil Company v. Getty Oil Company, 294 So.2d 810 (La.1974); McKean v. Campbell, 372 So.2d 652 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1979); New Orleans Mortg. Co., Inc. v. City of Kenner, 362 So.2d 1217 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978); McNeal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 278 So.2d 108 (La. 1973); Olsen Engineering Corp. v. Hudson Engineering Corp., 289 So.2d 346 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974). Louisiana application of the doctrine of res judicata establishes a presumption of correctness and precludes re-litigation of the object of a judgment only when there is (1) identity of the parties, (2) identity of "cause", and (3) identity of the "thing" demanded. La. Civil Code Art. 2286; Dornak v. Lafayette General Hospital, 399 So.2d 168 (La. 1981); R.G. Claitor's Realty v. Juban, 391 So.2d 394 (La. 1980); Welch v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 359 So.2d 154 (La. 1978); Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La. 1976). For these purposes "cause" refers to the fact or facts which give rise to the judicial relief sought. See: Lege v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 186 So.2d 670 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 478, 187 So.2d 448.

This Court in its opinion in Braquet et al. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, at p. 721, identified as the single issue presented "whether Tulane must return the legacy for failure to meet the condition of the onerous donation within a reasonable time." At the time of the rendition of the judgment by this Court in Braquet et al. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, Tulane had not commenced the building of any structure in connection with the Rogers legacy. The holding of this Court in Braquet et al. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, at p. 724, ordered "defendant to complete construction of the Chapel within 24 months of the time this judgment becomes final or to take steps to place the plaintiffs herein in possession of the estate if the chapel has not been completed within the time allotted." ⁴ Neither the issue identified by the Court nor the holding of the court concerned the nature, type, quality, usage or specifications of the chapel that the testator intended Tulane to build.

The fact which gave rise to the judicial relief sought in Braquet et al. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, was the failure of Tulane to construct anything with the proceeds of the Rogers' estate. The fact which gives rise to this present case is plaintiffs' complaint that what Tulane has built is not the "chapel" intended by the testator.

There exists a lack of "identity of 'cause' " between Braquet et al. v. The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund, supra, and this present action. Plaintiffs' exception to certain facts as res judicata, therefore, cannot be sustained.

Interpretation of the condition imposed upon the legacy

Plaintiffs complain that the trial court misinterpreted the testator's intentions so as to make them violate the Louisiana Constitution. The violations alleged by plaintiffs concern the creation of a Judeo-Christian Chair of Religion by Tulane, and the conducting of classes, lectures, and seminars in religion by Tulane, these activities taking place in the Myra Clare Rogers Memorial Chapel.

The will of James M. Rogers required as a condition of the legacy that Tulane construct a chapel memorializing his late sister Myra Clare Rogers. The will did not in any way prohibit or require Tulane to engage in any form of religion related academic instruction. A review of the court record in this case reveals that the trial court did not interpret the will as requiring Tulane to engage in any form of religious instruction. As such, the...