A business investment made before marriage can become the subject of a legal dispute years after a couple separates, particularly when the ownership structure changes during the marriage. In Louisiana, an early investment connected to the popular restaurant chain Raising Cane’s became the focus of a dispute between a divorced couple over whether the former wife could claim a share of her ex-husband’s business interests. On November 6, 2026, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, rejected her attempt to reopen the division of their property. The ruling in Anne Treme McQueen v. John Blackshear McQueen, available on Justia, upheld a lower court decision finding that the couple’s 2007 consent judgment had already allocated property titled in each spouse’s name, including the disputed business interests.
How the Raising Cane’s investment began
According to the court’s opinion, John McQueen acquired 10,000 preferred shares in Lloyd Bartlett, Inc. before marrying Anne McQueen on October 20, 2001. The corporation was connected to Todd Graves’ restaurant business, which developed into Raising Cane’s. The business structure changed shortly after the marriage. In November 2001, New LB, Inc. was established as part of a restructuring involving the Raising Cane’s-related entities. Lloyd Bartlett, Inc. merged into New LB, which survived the transaction and subsequently adopted the Lloyd Bartlett name.Under the restructuring arrangement, John’s original 10,000 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 court’s opinion described the interests received in the exchange as a 2% stake in the corporation and a 1% interest in each of the three LLCs. A later affidavit submitted by John reported a 0.495% interest in each LLC.
What the 2007 divorce settlement covered
Anne filed for divorce on November 9, 2006. The divorce was finalised through a judgment signed on September 4, 2007. The former couple subsequently entered into a consent judgment on October 24, 2007, addressing the division of their community property. The agreement 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. It also covered property attributable to their work or employment.The settlement listed several examples, including vehicles, bank accounts, investment accounts, retirement assets, intellectual property and personal property. Both parties waived further claims concerning community property, including requests for accounting and reimbursement. However, the agreement did not specifically name Lloyd Bartlett, Inc. or the three Raising Cane’s-related companies. Nor did it provide a separate valuation or detailed ownership breakdown of John’s business interests.
Why the former wife returned to court
On May 28, 2025, Anne filed a motion seeking the partition of property she believed had not been divided during the divorce. Her claims included John’s interests in Lloyd Bartlett, Inc. and the three Raising Cane’s-related companies.She argued that the business interests had not been specifically addressed in the 2007 settlement. According to her position, the agreement did not identify the companies, establish the ownership percentages or disclose their value. She also maintained that although she knew John had a connection to Raising Cane’s, she did not understand the nature or extent of his interests.John opposed the motion, arguing that the consent judgment had already settled the matter by awarding each spouse property titled in their respective names. He maintained that Anne could not reopen the property division to claim interests held in his name.
How the appeals court interpreted the agreement
The dispute required the Fourth Circuit to examine Louisiana’s res judicata law, including La. R.S. 13:4232(B), which addresses the application of res judicata in divorce and community-property proceedings. The court agreed that the provision was relevant but concluded that the wording of the consent judgment had already allocated the disputed interests. Because the corporate shares and LLC membership interests were titled in John’s name, they fell within the agreement’s provision awarding each spouse property held in their respective names.Anne also relied on a July 31, 2007 email exchange between John and his divorce lawyer. In the correspondence, John indicated that he wanted Anne to have as little involvement as possible in the matter. She argued that the communication was relevant to whether the business interests had been disclosed or addressed during the divorce proceedings.However, the appellate court noted that the email had not been admitted into evidence. It also found that the correspondence did not establish a mutual agreement to exclude the business interests from the settlement or demonstrate that considering it would have changed the outcome. Importantly, the court did not determine whether John’s interests were separate or community property, or establish their financial value. Its decision focused on whether Anne could pursue another partition claim after the 2007 agreement.
Court upholds dismissal of the claim
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, found no basis to overturn the lower court’s decision. It affirmed the March 4, 2026 judgment sustaining John’s exception of res judicata and dismissing Anne’s motion to partition the disputed interests with prejudice.The November 6, 2026 ruling means Anne cannot reopen the property division to pursue the Raising Cane’s-related interests covered by the settlement. The decision leaves the original consent judgment in place without determining the underlying classification or value of John’s business holdings.
