GEOFFREY J. BOULMAY, SR.
FREDERICK R. HEEBE, JR., COPELAND ESTATE ET AL.
FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2016-12579,
DIVISION "G-11" Honorable Robin M. Giarrusso, Judge
Geoffrey J. Boulmay, Sr. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, IN PROPER
William P. Gibbens Teva F. Sempel SCHONEKAS EVANS McGOEY
& McEACHIN, L.L.C., Peter J. Butler, Jr. Richard G.
Passler BREAZEALE SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P., Len R. Brignac
KING KREBS & JURGENS, P.L.L.C. Alexander M. McIntyre, Jr.
BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. COUNSEL
composed of Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano,
Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins
Cossich Lobrano, Judge
action to nullify judgment and claim for damages,
plaintiff/appellant, Geoffrey J. Boulmay, Sr.
("Boumay") appeals the district court's
judgments rendered on April 13, 2017 and June 26, 2017,
granting the exceptions of prescription filed by
defendants/appellees, Frederick R. Heebe, Jr.
("Heebe"), Alvin Copeland, Jr. as trustee of the
Article III Trust under the will of Alvin C. Copeland
("Copeland"), Richard Talluto
("Talluto"), Bryan White ("White"),
Aubrey B. Hirsch, Jr. ("Hirsch"), and Peter J.
Butler ("Butler")(collectively the
"appellees"), and dismissing Boulmay's claims
against these appellees. For the reasons that follow, we
December 28, 2016, Boulmay filed a petition in the district
court in which he alleged that the appellees committed acts
of "fraud on the court, " ultimately leading to a
plan of reorganization and Chapter XI bankruptcy judgment,
which were adverse to Boulmay's financial interests.
According to the petition, the events giving rise to this
litigation were initiated in 1981. The petition itself does
not identify the date of the judgment from which Boulmay
seeks relief. According to exhibits attached to the petition,
a third amended plan of reorganization was approved by the
bankruptcy court on March 3, 1983; judgment resolving the
bankruptcy proceedings was rendered on January 30, 1985 and
affirmed by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on February 28, 1986.
February 3, 2017, Heebe filed exceptions of prescription and
vagueness. On February 13, 2017, Copeland, Talluto, and White
jointly filed exceptions of prescription, res judicata, and
no cause of action. On February 17, 2017, Hirsch filed
exceptions of prescription, vagueness, no cause of action,
and res judicata.
March 31, 2017, the district court held a hearing on the
exceptions filed by Heebe, Copeland, Talluto, White, and
Hirsch. On April 13, 2017, the district court rendered
judgment, granted the exceptions of prescription, and
dismissed Boulmay's claims against Heebe, Copeland,
Talluto, White, and Hirsch.
on May 12, 2017, Butler made an appearance in the litigation
and filed exceptions of prescription, vagueness, and no cause
16, 2017, the district court held a hearing on the exceptions
filed by Butler. The district court rendered judgment on June
26, 2017, which granted Butler's exception of
prescription and dismissed Boulmay's claims against
Butler. This appeal followed.
discussing the merits of this appeal, we first address
whether this Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the
April 13, 2017 and June 26, 2017 judgments rendered by the
district court. Boulmay filed motions for appeal referencing
judgments dated March 31, 2016 and June 16, 2017; the record
before us, however, contains no judgments dated March 31,
2016 or June 16, 2017. Rather, the judgments in the record
were rendered, respectively, (1) on April 13, 2017 from a
hearing held on March 31, 2017, and (2) June 26, 2017 from a
hearing held on June 16, 2017.
Court has held that, although inaccurate, an appeal may
proceed where "the record reflects that all parties
thought the subject matter of the [two] judgments were being
appealed and that none of the appellees were prejudiced by
the mistake." Duplantier v. Krewe of Pygmalion,
2007-1034, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/3/08), 1 So.3d 570,
It is evident from the record that Boulmay intended to appeal
the judgments granting exceptions of prescription in favor of
the appellees, and all appellees have addressed the merits of
their respective exceptions in their briefs. We find no
prejudice to the appellees as a result of the mistaken dates
contained in Boulmay's motions for appeal. As such, the
appeal is properly before us, and we now address the merits
of the appeal.
sets forth one primary argument on appeal: that the judgment
he complains of in his petition is an ...