Background
Ruston Berry Woolley sought supervisory review of a May 12, 2026 judgment from the Family Court for East Baton Rouge Parish. That judgment denied Ruston Woolley’s Exception of No Cause of Action to a motion filed by Robert Woolley.
According to Judge Hester’s dissent, the parties’ stipulated judgment provided that their minor children would remain in Catholic school unless a parent experienced a non-voluntary and significant change in financial circumstances. Robert Woolley’s motion sought a change of schools but, in the dissent’s view, did not allege the financial change required by the stipulated judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Louisiana First Circuit denied the supervisory writ. The court’s order provided no reasoning for that disposition, leaving the district court’s May 12, 2026 judgment denying the exception undisturbed.
Judge Hester dissented and would have granted the writ, reversed the denial of the exception, and denied the portion of Robert Woolley’s motion seeking a change of schools. The dissent reasoned that a stipulated judgment operates as a bilateral contract and the law between the parties, and that the motion lacked allegations sufficient to satisfy the judgment’s school-choice condition. The dissent also would have remanded to permit amendment of the motion, if possible, under Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 934.
Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit denied Ruston Woolley’s application for supervisory review without explaining its reasoning.
- The writ denial left in place the district court’s denial of Ruston Woolley’s Exception of No Cause of Action.
- Judge Hester’s dissent concluded that Robert Woolley’s school-change request failed to allege the financial-circumstances change required by the parties’ stipulated judgment.
Why It Matters
The order allows the school-choice dispute to proceed despite the exception, but it does not establish a reasoned appellate holding on how the stipulated judgment should be interpreted or applied.
The dissent highlights a pleading issue for family-law practitioners: when requested relief is governed by a stipulated judgment, the motion should allege facts satisfying the judgment’s stated conditions or risk an exception of no cause of action.