The court did not decide whether the interests were separate or community property, nor establish their value.
A Louisiana appeals court has refused to reopen a divorce settlement nearly two decades after it was signed, in a dispute over business interests connected to the restaurant chain Raising Cane's. According to the Times of India, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, ruled on 6 November 2026 in Anne Treme McQueen v. John Blackshear McQueen, upholding a lower court decision that the couple's 2007 consent judgment had already allocated the property in question.
The court's opinion, cited in the report, sets out an unusually tangled ownership history. John McQueen acquired 10,000 preferred shares in Lloyd Bartlett, Inc. before marrying Anne McQueen on 20 October 2001. The corporation was connected to Todd Graves' restaurant business, which grew into Raising Cane's. In November 2001, New LB, Inc. was established as part of a restructuring, and Lloyd Bartlett merged into it; the surviving entity later took the Lloyd Bartlett name. John's preferred shares were exchanged for shares in the surviving corporation and membership interests in three limited liability companies: Raising Cane's Restaurants, LLC, Raising Cane's USA, LLC and Raising Cane's Franchising, LLC. The opinion described the exchange as yielding a 2% stake in the corporation and 1% in each LLC, while a later affidavit from John reported 0.495% in each LLC.
Anne filed for divorce on 9 November 2006, and the divorce was finalised by a judgment signed on 4 September 2007. A consent judgment of 24 October 2007 divided the couple's community property. It recognised Anne's ownership of the former family home and provided that each spouse would retain sole ownership of property in their possession or titled in their respective names, covering assets including vehicles, bank accounts, investment accounts, retirement assets, intellectual property and personal property. Both parties waived further claims, including requests for accounting and reimbursement. The agreement did not specifically name Lloyd Bartlett or the three Raising Cane's-related companies, and it provided no separate valuation or detailed breakdown of John's interests.
Anne returned to court on 28 May 2025, seeking partition of property she believed had not been divided. She argued that the business interests had never been specifically addressed, that the companies were not identified and that ownership percentages and value were not disclosed. She maintained that although she knew of John's connection to Raising Cane's, she did not understand the nature or extent of his interests. John argued that the consent judgment had settled the matter by awarding each spouse property titled in their respective names.
The Fourth Circuit examined Louisiana's res judicata law, including La. R.S. 13:4232(B), and agreed the provision was relevant, but concluded that the wording of the consent judgment had already allocated the disputed interests because the shares and membership interests were titled in John's name. Anne also relied on a July 2007 email exchange with John's divorce lawyer, in which he said he wanted her to have as little involvement as possible. The appellate court noted the email had not been admitted into evidence and found it did not establish a mutual agreement to exclude the business interests or show that considering it would have changed the outcome.
The ruling affirms a 4 March 2026 judgment sustaining John's exception of res judicata and dismissing Anne's motion with prejudice. Notably, the court did not decide whether the interests were separate or community property, nor establish their value; it decided only whether Anne could bring another partition claim after the 2007 agreement. The report does not indicate whether any further appeal is planned, and the underlying worth of the holdings remains undetermined.
